PRIVATE BUSINESS

Committee of Selection

Ordered,
	That Mr. Patrick McLoughlin be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. John Randall be added to the Committee—[Mr. Roy.]

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

Overcrowded Trains

Michael Jack: What steps he plans to take to reduce train overcrowding in the north-west of England.

Alistair Darling: Next year will see the introduction of 51 new trains on the TransPennine Express franchise at a cost   of £250 million. Northern Rail has a franchise commitment to review fleet deployment each year to minimise overcrowding. The Department will continue to work closely to secure improvements in services in the light of increasing rail patronage in the north-west.

Michael Jack: In the light of the Secretary of State's positive answer, may I ask him to add to his shopping list   of new capacity the ability for Virgin   Cross Country   services operating through the north-west to   ease their   overcrowding, through the use of the six non-operational Midland Mainline Meridian trains? Will he also discuss with Northern Rail the opportunities it may have for a little modest capacity investment in services around Manchester? Will he assure me that an investment appraisal of those projects will be carried out?

Alistair Darling: I am hopeful that a solution will be found to the problem of the trains that are currently not   being used. They were originally ordered to serve a   different route. As for routes into Manchester and   Leeds, some of the new trains introduced by TransPennine Express will increase capacity, especially at peak hours. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, two or three weeks ago I announced changes in franchises, which will mostly affect Midland and Central train services but will also affect the Virgin Cross Country service.
	We want to ensure that we can increase capacity when that is necessary. The review of the Northern Rail franchise, which we said would be carried out two years   into the franchise, should prove helpful. It is encouraging that more and more people are using the trains now that we have put some of the difficulties of the past few years behind us.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend is right to point out that the number of people using public transport is increasing in the north-west, but there is a problem. What can my right hon. Friend do to alleviate the difficulties on the line between Blackpool and Manchester Victoria and Manchester Piccadilly? It is dangerous because the trains are always so overcrowded, and that is not acceptable. Either there should be more trains, or the trains should be longer.

Alistair Darling: As I said a moment ago, improvements are planned for the train service in the north-west generally, but I am aware of some of the difficulties affecting trains to Manchester Piccadilly. I visited the station recently, and I know that the problem of access to two platforms in particular has existed for some time. I hope that Network Rail and the train operating companies can sort something out, because if we can encourage people to use trains rather than cars, that must benefit everyone in the north-west.

Peter Viggers: One of the causes of train overcrowding in the north-west, as in the rest of the country, is the problem with leaves on the line. It may sound amusing, but it causes delays costing Network Rail millions of pounds. Will the Secretary of State encourage Network Rail to proceed with its experiments involving a company in my constituency, Laserthor? I   have given him notice of this question.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right. Leaves on the line may be a subject for mirth in the newspapers, but three years ago there was a series of bad delays because of a sudden leaf fall. I am bound to say that the train companies were not terribly well prepared, and the delays lasted for a week to 10 days. Since then Network Rail has removed undergrowth from near the lines, and there has been much more investment in equipment to clear them, including laser jets. That has reduced the delays caused by leaves on the line.
	It is encouraging to note that because a number of measures have been taken, trains are much more reliable than they were, particularly in the autumn, when leaf fall causes delays. I hope that the trains are equally prepared for the coming winter, whatever it happens to bring.

Jim Dobbin: About 20 million passengers are trying to use transport infrastructure in the Greater Manchester system that does not have the necessary capacity. The north-west rail campaign is highlighting the congestion around the Manchester hub. There may well be a short-term and a long-term solution, and I should be interested to hear how the Secretary of State intends to improve the situation in both the short and the long term.

Alistair Darling: I have already listed some of the short-term improvements that will be made, and, as I   have said, some of the new trains that will be introduced under the TransPennine Express franchise will provide additional peak-time capacity on the route to Manchester. As for the longer term, my hon. Friend knows that I was in Manchester a couple of weeks ago. On that occasion I had some useful discussions with the passenger transport executive about what we could do to improve transport in Manchester generally. That will include improvements in bus services, light rail and heavy rail, as well as road improvements.
	If Greater Manchester is to continue to be one of the top 50 cities in which people choose to invest across Europe, we must have a transport system that backs it up. That applies to other areas as well. We have suffered from decades of under-investment in transport, and the consequences are there for all to see. Over the past few years, we have doubled transport spending. Now we need to ensure that that level of spending is maintained and not cut, so that we can establish a transport infrastructure that helps people to travel around Greater Manchester and other areas.

Tom Brake: In recent months, the Secretary of State has referred frequently to fast rail and to double-decker trains, which could play a part in reducing train overcrowding in the north-west. Can he confirm how the Chancellor will fund these proposals, how much funding is available, and whether—as the man widely touted to be the Chancellor's successor—his heart will really be in arguing for this investment?

Alistair Darling: Let me deal with the more serious of those points. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat, so I have to give him credence for having one serious point. Transport spending has doubled in the past few years and as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government set out such spending for the next 10 years, which shows transport's continuing rising profile. Indeed, we are spending more on transport than the Liberal Democrats promised to do during the last election. We will continue to put that money into the railways, into roads where doing so is necessary, and into other forms of public transport.
	The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Chancellor and I asked Rod Eddington to carry out a study into this country's long-term transport and major infrastructure needs. That work is well under way and   the study will be available next year. The hon. Gentleman has asked to meet Rod Eddington, and I am sure that he will accommodate that. It is important and in the country's best interests to get cross-party consensus on our continuing to invest in transport. There is no way that we can compete with the likes of China and the far east if we do not have a transport system that enables people to travel not just in this country, but abroad, and which enables us to import and export goods. It is vital that we maintain such investment.

Railway Station (Kenilworth)

Jeremy Wright: If he will take steps to encourage the building of a new railway station in Kenilworth.

Derek Twigg: Proposals for new or reopened stations are primarily matters for Network Rail. Any submitted business case for a new station at Kenilworth would be given due consideration based on its merits.

Jeremy Wright: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he accept that a traffic-congested town such as Kenilworth, which has 23,000 residents, ought to have a station? If he does receive a properly argued business case, will he join me in asking the Government to give their full support to that project, which would provide a huge transport benefit to the people of Kenilworth?

Derek Twigg: As the hon. Gentleman made clear, we have yet to receive such a business case. When we do, we   will consider it in the light of value for money and of the various benefits that it might offer.

Railway Stations (Disabled Access)

Greg Clark: When he expects all railway stations to be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Stephen Ladyman: Under part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, station operators are required to take reasonable steps to ensure that disabled people do not find it impossible or unreasonably difficult to access their services. We will publish a strategy for rail accessibility, including the initial allocation of Access for All funding, shortly. Access for All will deliver £370 million-worth of access improvements over the next 10 years.

Greg Clark: Is the Minister aware that Access for All funding will fund an improvement of only 5 per cent. in step-free access to stations, taking the level of such access from 50 per cent. to 55 per cent.? That means that by 2015, nearly half of all stations will still be inaccessible to disabled people. Does he stand by the pledge in the Department for Transport's public service agreement to make all stations accessible for disabled people by 2020, or is it a piece of spin to mislead them?

Stephen Ladyman: We intend to do everything possible to make all railway stations accessible for disabled people, but it is not an easy task. Many of our railway stations are very old—many are originally Victorian—and it is a very expensive process. There are also heritage issues to be considered in how we deliver that process, but £370 million is a considerable sum and it will take us a long way towards that objective.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend consider asking the train operating companies to ensure that there are enough staff to help such people on stations? We are going to have to wait a long time for the physical changes, but the presence and usefulness of lots of staff can transform the situation for those travelling.

Stephen Ladyman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we have sufficient staff available to help disabled people and they must be properly trained in how to do so. I will certainly ensure that the train operating companies receive that message.

Anne Main: Given the importance of providing disabled people with greater access to public transport and given the announcement in the 2005 Budget of a free travel pass for buses in 2006, how many buses does the Minister think will be compliant with the disability regulations to allow disabled people access to get on them by that year?

Stephen Ladyman: I do not have the figure to hand, but I   will happily write to the hon. Lady to provide her with the current estimate. I entirely agree that as many buses as possible should be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act and huge investment is going into the bus as well as the train network.

Tom Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the 1995 Act was being piloted through the House by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), acting for the Government of the day, the railway industry was   comprehensively consulted on this matter? To be honest, most of us expected somewhat more progress after 10 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) recently gave the House an example of disabled people having to travel in the guard's van. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands the urgency of this matter and will do his utmost to ensure the transformation that disabled people are entitled to expect.

Stephen Ladyman: I certainly agree with my right hon.   Friend's sentiments. He has had a long and distinguished career in fighting for the rights of disabled people and, indeed, in ensuring that the Disability Discrimination Act was passed. I would ask him to be a   little patient for the publication of our strategy. It should not be delayed too long now and I believe that it will provide him with a clear indication of how seriously we take this issue and how quickly we want to see progress on it.

Roger Williams: Railway stations such as the one at Abergavenny, which my constituents use, are unmanned late at night, so there is no one on the station to help disabled people across the line. It has been the practice that attendants on the trains carry out that service, but when a train is running late and the train operators are liable to a penalty on that account, it is sometimes not provided. In those circumstances, will the Minister ensure that train operators always provide that service?

Stephen Ladyman: I will certainly ensure that that problem at the hon. Gentleman's local station is looked into. I   share the hon. Gentleman's concerns—it is unacceptable if disabled people are left in such circumstances.

Night Flight Restrictions

Barbara Follett: If he will extend the 1999 air traffic night restrictions imposed at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted to other airports with increasing night time air traffic.

Karen Buck: We indicated in "The Future of Air Transport" White Paper that we would consider exercising powers similar to those used to regulate noise at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted at other airports, if there were evidence that a major noise problem was not being dealt with adequately through local controls. However, the Government's preference remains that local solutions should be devised for local problems, wherever possible.

Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Luton airport is now handling more night flights than Heathrow, however, and the noise levels are becoming excessive. Stevenage residents would like the Minister to implement one of the World Health Organisation's guidelines on noise by setting up a mapping and monitoring exercise to establish whether noise levels in the Luton airport area are, as they fear, excessive.

Karen Buck: There are a number of points to consider.
	On the matter of designation, we have made it clear that it remains an option, but it is not a power that is   triggered by numbers. Indeed, we have said that designation is available as a power if we agree that   airport operators are consistently failing to deal   with problems in the local area. We accept the World Health Organisation's guidelines as a long-term target to which to aspire. That is why we have adopted a multi-pronged approach with airport operators to bear down on noise by encouraging quieter aircraft, using noise contours and by encouraging improvements in operational management such as noise preferential routes and continuous descent approach. In the Civil Aviation Bill, we have clarified the powers for fining airlines if they deviate from such strategies.

Edward Garnier: The Minister could probably write my question herself, thanks to my interest—no doubt tedious to the Department—in the activities of Nottingham East Midlands airport. That airport is located entirely in Leicestershire, yet is wholly owned by 10 local authorities in Manchester.
	The Minister kindly held a meeting recently with me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), at which we discussed noise caused by night flights. Nottingham East Midlands airport has more night flights than Luton airport. The Minister talked about local decision making, but what does she mean by "local"? What does she want the airport to do to make the lives of my constituents in south-east Leicestershire, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), almost tolerable?

Karen Buck: We want airline operators to bear down on noise, using the powers available to them at present and the ones that we are clarifying and strengthening in the   Civil Aviation Bill. Also, complaints made by constituents must be dealt with properly, as I explained when I met the hon. and learned Gentleman and the   right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr.   Clarke). I have also discussed those matters with the Manchester Airport Group, and I have made it clear that we will monitor the problem closely and ensure that service delivery is improved.

Andy Reed: My hon. Friend the Minister is right to ensure that local decisions affect the final determination in respect of designation. The White Paper and the Civil Aviation Bill say that stringent noise controls will be imposed, but how does the Department define the word "stringent"? Is there a chance that my hon. Friend can answer that today?

Karen Buck: Noise controls vary because every airport is different, and that is why we have said that most airports must encourage local responses. Airports must profile their local noise contours and encourage reduced noise levels. The various methods by which they can do that include using quieter aircraft and implementing better operational management procedures. Also, charges and penalties can be imposed on airlines that deviate from that strategy.

Peter Lilley: Can the Minister justify allowing the Luton local authority to regulate night flights at Luton airport, given that it owns the airport's freehold and gets a bonus for every flight in and out? The noise difficulties, however, are suffered by my constituents in Hitchin and Harpenden and by the constituents of the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett). Surely Luton cannot claim to be a London airport when it is regulated in a different way from all London's other airports.

Karen Buck: We have made the matter absolutely clear. It is not simply a question of the number of flights, but whether airports are failing to implement the measures available to them. We have no reason to believe that that is happening. Luton airport has published its master plan and, when a planning application is submitted, it will be for the planning authority to determine whether it wishes to impose controls on the numbers of flights. The measures available to local authorities, and the powers that are clarified and strengthened in the Civil Aviation Bill—

Alan Duncan: Strengthened?

Karen Buck: The powers are clarified and strengthened by the Bill, and will be sufficient to ensure that airports continue to bear down on noise. It is worth remembering that the area affected by noise as set out in Luton airport's policy in respect of jets flying at night has remained consistent since 1994.

David Taylor: The noise problems at East Midlands airport are not at their most acute in Harborough in south-east Leicestershire or in Melton in north-east Leicestershire, but there are serious problems in south Derbyshire and   Rushcliffe—that is, around the airport itself. What weight will the Minister give to the master plan regime emerging at East Midlands airport and elsewhere? Some of the plan's targets have been set by the airports themselves, as happened with Luton, so will she discount them? After all, we do not ask tobacconists to   suggest ways to reduce cigarette consumption, or brewers to do the same with alcohol, do we?

Karen Buck: No, we do not, but we are bound, both nationally and internationally, to have a balanced policy. We must ensure that the economic benefits of   aviation are balanced against the undoubted environmental impact. We have not received the master plan yet but, when we do, we shall appraise it carefully. The powers available to us include those that I have discussed with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). If we come to be satisfied—and we are not at that point yet with Luton—that an airport has consistently failed to deal with the problem of noise caused by night flights, we can resort to the power of designation.

Alan Duncan: The problem is that the supposed night   flight restrictions at designated airports such as Heathrow are about to be rendered meaningless. If the Government get their way on the Civil Aviation Bill, now in the other place, the limit on the number of flights will be replaced by noise quotas, which are a vague and inaccurate measure of disturbance. There will no longer be an effective night flight regime that could be extended to other airports—even if the Minister were to choose to do so. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State now reconsider their policy of removing the requirement to set a numerical limit on flights at night?

Karen Buck: I do not agree. The whole point of the proposal in the Civil Aviation Bill is to provide an incentive for the airport operators and airlines to continue to bear down on the level of noise. Those powers are available, but it is not necessarily the case—as clearly stated in the Bill—that they will be used. The Bill allows the Secretary of State—after 2012 at the end   of the current night noise consultation period—to choose to make that change if he so wishes. If he does not wish to and feels that it would in any way lead to a diminution in the powers available to him, he does not have to do so.

Alan Duncan: Essentially, in non-designated airports, there is no restriction on the growth of flights at night. The legislation being considered at the moment permits an airport to charge for noise and emissions, but there is no limit on the number of or growth in night flights. Does the Minister have any appreciation whatever of   the anger and frustration people feel about the disturbance caused by that policy?
	The Government are re-routeing flights over rural areas, where noise at night is much more disturbing. They refuse to establish a reasonable regime for limiting flights at night. They decline to establish a process that could simply give us the facts about who is flying where, and they pretend that noise quotas will solve the problem. The Government's aviation policy is a complete and utter shambles. When will they listen to the concerns of people—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too long—

Alan Duncan: —who only want to get a good night's sleep?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Karen Buck: I completely understand, and have said so on several occasions, that people who live near airports often suffer from a detrimental impact as a consequence of noise. However, as I said earlier, it is a question of a   balanced approach. The whole country benefits from   the £10 billion contributed by aviation and the 200,000-plus jobs that are dependent on it. We have a duty to balance that economic benefit with what we can do to ensure that the undisputed environmental impact, including noise, is ameliorated.

Rail Services (Northampton)

Sally Keeble: What plans he has to improve train services to Northampton.

Derek Twigg: New air-conditioned trains have been progressively introduced since June 2005 onto the west coast, serving Northampton from both London   and Birmingham. Furthermore, there will be an upgraded London to Northampton timetable from December 2005 and other improvements in June 2006. The Department is working with Network Rail, the train operating companies and stakeholders to pursue further improvements from 2008.

Sally Keeble: I welcome the improvements that have been made to the service to Northampton. However, can my hon. Friend say when the Government will invest in the upgrading of the Northampton line so that we can have faster services to Birmingham? In particular, what will the Government do to support the bids for funding for improvements to Northampton station, which will have to serve a much larger town as we grow as part of the growth plans for the region?

Derek Twigg: As my hon. Friend may be aware, the timetable change in December is expected to replace two of the slower trains with faster ones. Northampton, like many of the areas through which the west coast main line passes, has benefited from the billions of pounds that have been invested by the Government. It is important that we bear in mind the fact that the upgrading and enlargement of Rugby station will lead to improvements when completed in 2008. As she knows, I recently had a productive meeting with her and members of the Northampton rail group to hear the plans for an inter-modal interchange at Northampton station to provide better linkage between buses and trains. I am waiting for the full proposals to be put forward.

Brian Binley: I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State say that he would continue to put money into railways where necessary. May I remind him of the sustainable communities project in which Northampton plays a major part and of the fact that the population there is about to increase by more than 50 per cent. to 100,000? It is our view that the plans put forward in that programme are not sustainable, so will the Minister give us more hope in Northampton that we will have a railway service that serves those people?

Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point in terms of investment: £87 million a week is going into the railways, with the biggest ever improvement in rolling stock and refurbishment of rolling stock in recent history. We have the fastest growing railway in Europe, with more than 1 billion passenger journeys last year. As I have just made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), we are waiting for details of the plans for improvements at and around Northampton station. There have already been improvements to the London service, and the enlargement of Rugby station will have major benefits not only for Northampton but for the wider west coast.

Transport Funding

Colin Challen: If he will set a date for the ending of the per capita difference in funding for transport between London and the regions.

Alistair Darling: No, a range of factors, not just resident population, helps to determine how transport funding is distributed.

Colin Challen: The Government are to be congratulated on nearly doubling their transport budget over the last five years, which is reflected in Yorkshire and Humber where five years ago the Government were spending about £150 million and are now spending more than £350 million. But even with those great improvements, only £1 per head is spent on us compared to London's £3 per head. Despite the regrettable decision of my right hon. Friend's Department not to go ahead with the Leeds supertram, will he reconsider his answer and look at how our needs can be addressed more seriously and with a lot more resource?

Alistair Darling: I understand my hon. Friend's point; he also makes the reasonable point that the Government have doubled transport spending over the last few years and that the Leeds area has seen that improvement, too. Transport spending will never be the same per head in every part of the country, because transport projects in   different parts of the country do not all take place at the same time—especially the major ones—so from year to year more may be spent in one region than another. The amount of money spent outside London is broadly similar. Successive Governments have recognised the fact that due to London's importance to the whole UK economy—including the fact that London has an underground and no other transport authority has anything like that—spending in London is always likely to be higher than elsewhere.
	I understand my hon. Friend's disappointment about the Leeds supertram. The problem was that the building costs had gone up by about 40 per cent., but I have said that I want to work closely with Leeds to improve transport, in particular to see whether we can build a modern, up-to-date, rapid bus system such as those in other parts of Europe. We are committed to increasing spending outside London, but there will always be disparities from time to time both between regions and between London and the rest of the country.

John Redwood: Would the Secretary of State consider squaring the circle of inadequate capacity and inadequate funding outside London by bringing forward proposals for the private sector to raise money and build toll highways along the lines of the northern Birmingham relief road, which has been a success?

Alistair Darling: I agree: the Birmingham relief road has been a great success. It has taken traffic off the M6 and allowed for faster journeys, and shows that if people are getting a better service, which is an important point, they are prepared to pay for it. I have absolutely no objection whatever to the private sector bringing money into transport. Indeed, we currently spend £87 million a week on the railways and a similar amount of money comes from the private sector, so I have no difficulty whatever with that, on the simple grounds that two sources of money coming into the transport system must be better than one.

Paul Truswell: Further to the rejection of the Leeds supertram proposals and the Department's preference for a bus solution, will my right hon. Friend look again at the process for introducing quality bus contracts in the region? Will he also look at the role that rail could play in meeting some of the transport challenges that face Leeds?

Alistair Darling: Yes; there is a general point that affects not just Leeds but other conurbations, such as Greater Manchester and so on. What I have said is that, if local authorities or groups of local authorities are prepared to propose a comprehensive system for managing traffic, which may well include road pricing—I have told the House before that I want to test it in one area of the   country and possibly in some smaller-scale schemes elsewhere as well—I am prepared in turn to amend the legislation to allow greater control of bus services where that happens.
	I will not go back to the regulation that we had in the 1980s because that would be the wrong thing to do, and there are many examples of where the present bus service works perfectly well. However, if there is an area where we can bring together demand management and improve public transport, it is necessary to have greater control over the bus services than we have at present. I   want to make it clear that there will be no return to the regulation of the 1980s—that would be the wrong thing to do—but in the specific case where an area has a comprehensive plan, I am prepared to consider it. I have told Leeds, Greater Manchester and councillors in the west midlands that, if they make such proposals, I shall look at them very carefully indeed.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Secretary of State agree that road maintenance is part of transport? Does he accept that, in many rural and county areas, the road authority—the county council—is finding it very difficult to maintain to an acceptable standard minor roads, which are increasingly used by traffic and ever heavier commercial vehicles? Should that not be taken into account in the allocation of transport funding, given the problems faced particularly by rural areas in counties throughout the country?

Alistair Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Road maintenance is absolutely essential. The problem is that many councils tend to consider it as a soft option for cuts if they want to spend money elsewhere, quite simply because it takes some years before that neglect becomes apparent. Unfortunately, despite the fact that we have dramatically increased the amount of money given to local authorities over the past seven or eight years, many authorities have not been spending the money where they ought to spend it. I do not know whether the hon.   Gentleman has in mind his own county council, but perhaps he and other hon. Members who have this problem should have a word with their councils and ask them why they are not spending the money that the Government are giving them on road maintenance. It is a false economy to cut road maintenance; sooner or later, it results in major expenditure. Most people tend to judge transport by the state of their local transport and local roads, which is why it is important to get it right.

Gisela Stuart: Will the Secretary of State consider making available extra funding so that all local authorities can take part in operations, such as the one that we saw today in the west midlands, to crack down on uninsured drivers?

Alistair Darling: We intend to extend the programme whereby people who drive without insurance can be identified instantly and their cars will be taken from them unless they insure them. I was in Birmingham this morning and saw the start of that programme. It is worth bearing in mind that, in the past two months when the West Midlands police force were piloting the programme, nearly 3,000 people whom they stopped were found not to have insurance. A lot of those people did not have MOTs or licences. I saw a case this morning where other criminal activity was discovered, so it is an extremely useful exercise. Modern technology makes it   possible to carry out such checking instantly. The message to people who have been driving in the past without insurance is that the chances are that it will be much easier to catch them in the future, and the police now have the power to crush or sell cars that are not claimed or insured within two weeks. That ought to concentrate the mind wonderfully.

Cross-London Rail Route

Simon Hughes: If he will assess the merits of an alternative north-south cross-London rail route to the proposed Thameslink route through London Bridge station.

Alistair Darling: Alternative north-south cross-London rail routes have been considered at the Thameslink project public inquiry, which opened on 6 September and is   expected to end in December. The inspector will subsequently write his report, which is likely be submitted to me and the Deputy Prime Minister next year.

Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State may know that I and many other local people gave evidence against the scheme at the inquiry. When the report reaches him, will he try to ensure that we get a north-south rail scheme across London that is not out of date, as the current one   will be by the time it is completed, and that does not   run out of capacity, as the current one will by the time it opens? An alternative scheme could be realised due to the change of plans for Waterloo, given that the cross-channel rail link will go elsewhere. Will he look at a scheme that either goes by Elephant and Castle and Herne Hill, or tunnels under the river, to provide the capacity that the whole rail network needs?

Alan Duncan: Too long.

Alistair Darling: I was aware that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) had given evidence to the inquiry—he appears to be repeating it today for the benefit of us all.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will decide when a question is long. I assure the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that that question was not as long as a supplementary that he asked.

Alistair Darling: Perhaps I can say two things. Until we get the inspector's report, I obviously cannot pass any judgment on it. However, I say to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey and the House that the project that is known as Thameslink 2000—we all know that the name is a bit of a joke—should have been completed five years ago. It fell at the last planning inquiry because it became so complicated that it eventually failed not on railway grounds, but due to the planning proposals on buildings that the then Railtrack submitted. Whatever the inspectorate comes up with, I   hope that we will be able to do something quickly because a north-south link is badly needed by London and people who live to the north and south of London.

Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend also look at a London orbital network that could join the north, south, east and west London lines and enable commuters to avoid the centre of London, unlike Thameslink?

Alistair Darling: I am always willing to look at proposals, but I would not want to raise false hopes. People know that although funding for transport has expanded over many years, it is none the less constrained. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that I can fund that specific project, but if he will let me see it, I shall, of course, look at it.

John Hayes: Cross-London rail travel is critical, yet the Government's record, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is appalling. Dozens of projects have been cancelled or postponed, and many commuter services into London, on the Government's own figures, are at 105 per cent. capacity during the rush hour. The Government's prevarication over Crossrail is not helpful to that cause. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 27 October about this timidity, but I have not heard back from him. Of course he should assess the prospects for alternative north-south routes across London, but will he now tell the House in clear terms whether the Government are committed to the east-west route across London—namely Crossrail? Will he give the House a clear timetable and properly costed business plan for that? If he does not, we will know that the Government do not really support Crossrail.

Alistair Darling: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would hesitate before being quite so critical of our record on Crossrail because many of us who were in the House during the 1990s will recall that the then Government's attempts to build Crossrail ran into the ground, partly because their plans were not very well thought out and partly because they ran us into one of the deepest recessions of the past century, which meant that the whole economic case collapsed.
	Our commitment to Crossrail is demonstrated by the   fact that we persuaded the House in July to give the Crossrail Bill a Second Reading. That is pretty clear evidence of our intent to build the railway. On the timetable, as I have said on many occasions, much will depend on the progress made through the House.

John Hayes: Where is the Committee?

Alistair Darling: I think that the usual channels on both sides of the House are currently trying to conscript hon. Members to serve on the Committee. In years to come,   I am sure that they will look back at what a splendid opportunity that was to demonstrate their parliamentary skills and contribute something to Britain and London's infrastructure.

Overcrowded Trains

Julie Morgan: If he will make a statement on levels of overcrowding on rail services from England to Wales.

Derek Twigg: I am not aware of a general pattern of overcrowding on these services, although there will inevitably be occasions when, for any one of a variety of reasons, demand may outstrip the number of seats available.

Julie Morgan: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he look into restrictions on people standing on trains and the health and safety implications of overcrowding, especially on Arriva trains from Manchester to Cardiff, so that my constituent, Rev. Thorn, does not have another experience such as that which he had when travelling from Manchester to Cardiff on a two-carriage train that was very overcrowded?

Derek Twigg: Obviously, I understand people's concern about crowded trains, but health and safety officials keep the policy under the review and at present they see no need to introduce new legislation to deal with the issue. There are many options available to help deal with overcrowding, such as better timetabling, ensuring that maintenance is completed properly and on time and, where possible, the provision of extra rolling stock.

Adam Price: Alongside short-term measures to reduce overcrowding, will the long-term investment review to which the Secretary of State referred consider measures to improve future services between Wales and England?

Derek Twigg: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the high-level export specification. Of course, we are looking at future capacity and affordability. It is important to reiterate that we spend   £87 million a week on the railways. We have the fastest-growing railway system in Europe, and 1 billion passenger journeys were made last year. There is record investment in new rolling stock and the refurbishment of rolling stock.

Andrew Miller: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the work undertaken by Merseytravel on the Bidston to Wrexham line that crosses from England to Wales through my constituency? If that work is completed it will have a radical impact on our overcrowded roads and bring many more passengers to the railway, so it could be a hugely beneficial project for the entire travel-to-work area.

Derek Twigg: We are willing to look at the merits of any business case that my hon. Friend wishes to make. We are happy to consider affordable opportunities and options, but there are other priorities on the railway that we must take into account.

Transport Infrastructure

Stephen Crabb: What assessment he has made of the economic impact of investing in transport infrastructure.

Stephen Ladyman: Transport makes a significant contribution to the effectiveness and growth of a healthy economy. Well-targeted investment in infrastructure plays a key part, but we also need to make the most of existing capacity and take proper account of the needs of the environment. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport have asked Sir Rod Eddington to   work with the Department for Transport and HM   Treasury to advise on the long-term impact of transport decisions on the UK's productivity, stability and growth.

Stephen Crabb: I agree that there is a link between economic performance and investment in transport infrastructure, but is the Minister not concerned that only last month the Institution of Civil Engineers, in its assessment of UK infrastructure, said that there has been little if any improvement in the state of the nation's transport systems since the quiet demise of the 10-year transport plan? It said that
	"the failure to commit financially to major projects . . . does not bode well for the future of the nation."
	Can the Minister reassure the House and stakeholders such as the ICE that progress has been made and that investment is delivering genuine results?

Stephen Ladyman: With the greatest respect to the ICE, it is entirely wrong, as we are spending about £260 million a week on our transport infrastructure. However, I   agree that we had a long way to travel after 18 years of Conservative under-investment in our transport infrastructure. There are a lot of holes to fill, and a great deal of money has been spent catching up, but major improvements have been made, and they can be seen all round the country.

Clive Betts: I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that there is support for "The Northern Way", but to turn that concept into reality we need excellent communications between the major urban centres in the north. Does he therefore accept that we should revisit the need for plans for significant investment in rail infrastructure between Sheffield and London, Sheffield and Leeds, and Sheffield and Manchester? Such investment is badly needed if we are to make "The Northern Way" a success.

Stephen Ladyman: "The Northern Way" is an important initiative that will help us to plan the changes needed to   maximise the economic benefit of transport infrastructure in the north. I have noted the schemes mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I am sure that my colleagues who deal with these matters will take them on   board. I can confirm, however, that the principle that he espoused is entirely accurate: without good infrastructure in the north there will not be a good,   strong economy there.

Julian Brazier: In deciding where to focus investment in the transport infrastructure, does the Minister believe that investment in the road and rail networks that link our cities, airports and seaports should be used as a tool to encourage economic growth in underdeveloped regions, or does he think it a case of predict, provide and, when there is some money in the kitty, spend? Is there a planned limit to the bulldozing in the north and the concreting of the south?

Stephen Ladyman: "The concreting of the south" is one of those concepts much beloved of Conservative Members, who seem to forget that those of us who represent constituencies in the south have constituents who find it   difficult to buy houses because of the growth in prices or to maintain their businesses because important investment is needed. Equally, we have a duty to make sure that the economies of the north grow, which is why we are making massive investments not only in the north, where it is appropriate, but in the south.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Public Services

Andrew MacKinlay: If he will make a statement on his work on delivery and reform of public services.

Jim Murphy: Significant progress has been made in delivering high-quality public services throughout the UK. Record levels of investment in public services have been crucial, but the drive to reform services so that they are more responsive to customers' needs is increasingly important.

Andrew MacKinlay: Has the junior Minister noticed that the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been vacant for more than a week, which is a cause for concern because either a lot of work is piling up or there is not enough work to do? I have not relaxed and have carried my mobile phone around with me all week in the hope that I might get the call. In the spirit of "gissa job", will the junior Minister indicate to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, if I am invited to take up the post, my first counsel on co-ordinating delivery and reform in our public services will be that restoring direct grant schools, which we abolished, and dismantling primary care trusts, which we created, are not sensible reforms and will not be conducive to our radical programme in England?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend failed the job interview with his second question. If he were successful, however, he would liven up Cabinet meetings—not that they need livening up, given recent comment in the press.
	We will continue with our reforms to ensure that   public services are increasingly personal. Such public service reforms have cut waiting lists in my hon. Friend's constituency, reduced crime and decreased unemployment by almost 18 per cent. We must ensure that those reforms are delivered to an increasing number of people throughout the country, regardless of their socio-economic background. On public service delivery, we want to ensure that the choices and rights that we, as Members of Parliament, take for granted are available not only to the well-off, but to all of our constituents.

Chris Grayling: It is a huge vote of no confidence in the Cabinet Office if the Prime Minister does not think it important to replace the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I can only assume that he thinks it more important to have teams of special advisers working in the Cabinet Office than to appoint a Minister to get involved in their work.
	Will the Under-Secretary tell me what progress is being made on realising the savings set out in the Gershon review?

Jim Murphy: The savings in the Gershon review are   continuing apace throughout government. The Government are committed to stripping down the cost of national and local government to ensure that as much investment as possible goes into the delivery of services rather than back-office supply. The transformation in government strategy was launched last Thursday, so it did not attract as much publicity as might reasonably have been expected. Information technology is crucial to delivering the modernisation of government and making the appropriate savings throughout government.

Andrew Miller: The day that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, slipped out of the Cabinet Office, he published an important document on transforming e-government. Can we be assured that the principles espoused in the foreword by the Prime Minister, which is an extremely important document that everyone should read, will be delivered by every single Department?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He chairs the all-party group on information technology and takes a keen interest in the subject, as do many Members on both sides of the House. The vision that   underpins the strategy— extending choice to all throughout the country, having shared services in local government and national Government, and, crucially, ensuring that public servants have IT professionalism—will be seen through. An estimated 50,000 IT professionals work in public services, but too often in the past they have had a series of jobs and no clear career path. The IT strategy published last week aims to bring that anomaly to an end.

David Heath: It seems that the Duchy of Lancaster is managing all right without a Chancellor.
	Can the Under-Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister has moved from his Department a senior civil servant—the architect of the rather unpalatable views that he has espoused on incapacity benefit—to work alongside, in some indeterminate role, the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the Department for Work and Pensions? Is it a new policy for the Government to have somebody working in each Department to second guess its civil servants, to bamboozle the Under-Secretary's hon. Friends, and to   ensure that Ministers toe the Downing street line?

Jim Murphy: I do not know the details of what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. The Liberal Democrats are again asking about welfare reform in the context of   an individual civil servant's movements across Departments. The hon. Gentleman can ask the Department for Work and Pensions about that directly. However, there is a much wider issue here. Too many people are languishing on benefits and are denied the opportunity to get off them and into meaningful employment. We are not a dole party—we do not want there to be an aspiration of allowing people throughout generations to survive on benefit. There is a need for radical reform to support those who genuinely cannot work as well as those who want the opportunity to go out to work, thereby enlivening their lives, contributing to their family's lives, and paying taxes rather than just taking benefits. The Government will persevere with that determination despite the Liberals' opposition to that and every other meaningful reform.

Civil Service Bill

Tony Wright: When he expects to bring forward a civil service Bill.

Jim Murphy: As the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon.   Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr.   Hutton), made clear in his evidence last week to the Public Administration Committee, of which my hon. Friend is Chairman, we are considering the responses received to the Government's proposals for legislation for the civil service, and we will make a statement in due course.

Tony Wright: I am grateful for that. The problem is that this proposal was first made 151 years ago; it is not as though we have been short of time to consult on it. The Government have said that they are in favour of doing it and have issued a consultation paper and a draft Bill. Can my hon. Friend at least tell me that the Government will introduce a Bill some time during this Parliament?

Jim Murphy: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his Committee for their work. He is right that this has been mooted for more than 150 years. We waited 149 years even for a draft Bill, as successive Governments on both sides did not even provide that. My hon. Friend will have to be patient for a little longer. As he knows, the Government have a packed legislative agenda, and the   proposed legislation will take its place in the competition for very limited time. The decision will ultimately be made not by me but by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

Julian Lewis: Labour promised to introduce this Bill in 2001 in its election manifesto, and the Deputy Prime Minister promised to do so in 2002, yet there is no sign of it. Is it not hardly surprising, given that this is the party that gave us the likes of Jo Moore and Alastair Campbell, that it does not want legislation to entrench the impartiality, objectivity and independence of the civil service to go on to the statute book?

Jim Murphy: There has been remarkable change in the regulations in recent years. A code of conduct and a model contract for special advisers have been published. For the first time, there is an annual list of the numbers, names and costs of special advisers. None of that happened under the previous Government.
	On the civil service Bill, we had 18 years of a Conservative Government with no draft Bill and no Act. When we published our draft Bill, we wrote to Conservative Front Benchers. At that time, the relevant position was held by no other than the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). We waited for an answer for four months but have still received no reply from Conservative Front-Bench Members. Under the Tories, we had no draft Bill and no Act; later, they could not even summon up the enthusiasm to offer a written response. Is it any wonder that people believe that Conservative support for the measure is, at best, lukewarm?

Civil Service (Diversity)

Mary Creagh: If he will make a statement on progress on increasing diversity in the civil service.

Jim Murphy: The civil service has   made good progress towards increasing diversity, including at its senior levels, but there is still much more work to do. Last week, Sir Gus O'Donnell, head of the home civil service, launched a 10-point plan. Its aim is to deliver a civil service that is truly representative of society.

Mary Creagh: I know that the civil service as a whole is representative in terms of gender and ethnicity, but does my hon. Friend agree that we need a civil service in which women and people from ethnic minorities are represented at senior levels? It is not good enough to have a bulge at the bottom, with middle-aged white men   determining the strategy at the top, especially, for example, at the Treasury, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.

Jim Murphy: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In the few months that she has been in Parliament, she has taken a keen interest in such matters. She is right to say that the civil service is broadly representative in respect of gender and ethnicity. There has been important progress in ensuring that there is double the number of women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds in the senior civil service compared with seven or eight years ago. However, much remains to do, which is why the 10-point plan has been published. It will be applied across Departments. We have a real job to do in ensuring that meaningful careers in the civil service are available to those who are disabled as well as to women and those from ethnic minorities.

Modernising Logistics Provision

Adam Ingram: I am pleased to have been able to secure the opportunity to make an oral statement to the House today in place of the written statement that I had tabled.
	As the House knows, the Government are committed to the transformation of defence logistics support as an essential part of the ongoing and extensive programme of modernisation of the armed forces. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made an announcement to that effect to the House on 21 July. We believe that logistics transformation is a critical part of providing more effective support to our armed forces while releasing resources for the front line and making the best use of taxpayers' money. The National Audit Office recognises that the Ministry of Defence's logistics transformation programme will deliver about £2 billion of efficiency savings to the Ministry by 2010–11.
	Our objective is to deliver more adaptable, efficient and effective support structures—forces that are better configured to enable our expeditionary operations. Let me make it plain to all hon. Members that every penny that we refuse to release by not implementing our modernisation programme is a penny less that is available to provide our forces with the life-saving support they need. Let me also make it plain that I know how much our employees have contributed to providing that support over the years and how proud they are of the role that they have played. Nevertheless, we have to accept that we must adapt to the changing strategic environment, and that means having more adaptable, efficient and effective support structures, which are better configured to enable our armed forces to conduct expeditionary operations.
	We support those forces with two businesses that provide depth support in the air and land environments.   They are DARA—the Defence Aviation Repair Agency— and ABRO—the Army Base Repair Organisation—which provides depth repair for the land and armoured vehicle fleet. DARA and ABRO were established as trading funds in 2001 and 2002 respectively, thereby recognising their need to operate on a largely commercial basis at arm's length from the Ministry of Defence. In common with all parts of logistics support, DARA and ABRO are significantly affected by the modernisation programme. It has already led to a number of significant savings, including a planned reduction of more than 2,000 RAF personnel by 2007–08. After careful analysis by my Department, it was determined that there was no strategic need to retain in MOD ownership the capabilities that those trading funds provide. I announced that to the House, in respect of DARA, in December 2004. Instead, judgments on their future must be based on the best balance of value, cost and risk, compared with the   alternatives.
	In the case of DARA, on 25 November last year I   announced in a written statement to the House the introduction of new depth repair arrangements for the Tornado aircraft, in addition to those made earlier for the Harrier. Under those arrangements, maintenance and repair is being consolidated at two RAF main operating bases. Previously, there had been four levels of support for aircraft, stretching from industry to the front line. These are being reconfigured to just two—depth support and deployable forward support—concentrated at the most cost-effective location.
	Those arrangements are proving successful and have already increased operational effectiveness by reducing the number of aircraft in maintenance. In the Harrier fleet, for example, the number of aircraft in maintenance and upgrade at any one time will reduce from a planned 24 to an average of 13, freeing 11 additional aircraft to   the front line at any one time. Similar benefits are   expected once the   Tornado future support arrangements are fully implemented.
	Those improvements, together with the implementation of complementary and innovative changes to the way in which logistic support is provided, will significantly enhance our ability to deliver required front-line readiness, and will do so at much lower cost. Consolidating support for fast jets and helicopters will deliver net savings of some £70 million over the next four years, with recurring annual savings of £40 million thereafter.
	I come now to the future of DARA's five business units: St. Athan in south Wales; Almondbank in Perth, Scotland; Sealand in north Wales; and the two units at Fleetlands in Hampshire. I shall deal first with DARA's fixed-wing business at St. Athan. Fast jet workload has reduced for a number of reasons. We have announced the withdrawal of the Jaguar fleet. We have also reduced the number of operational Tornado F3 squadrons, resulting in a reduction in the required Tornado operational fleet of 17 aircraft. We have increased the interval between major servicing for the Tornado F3 and GR4 fleets and, as part of our end-to-end review of air logistic support, migrated maintenance of Harrier and Tornado GR4 aircraft to the RAF's main operating bases at Cottesmore and Marham.
	DARA has been unable to secure commercial aviation repair business in a market that faces overcapacity and is fiercely competitive. My judgment, therefore, is that, regrettably, the fast jet business at St.   Athan does not have a long-term future, so I am announcing, subject to consultation, that it should close by April 2007 with the loss of up to 500 jobs, primarily in south Wales. However, the same end-to-end review has resulted in more VC10 work transferring to DARA's large aircraft business, helping it to remain a viable and sustainable business and to secure about 350 jobs at the St. Athan site. I am therefore announcing, again subject to consultation, that this VC10 business should be taken to the market now, to test whether sale might deliver improved effectiveness and value for money for our armed forces and a better long-term future for the work force.
	The Department's investment in the Red Dragon project has enabled DARA and the MOD to achieve major reductions in operating costs, and it has enabled   significant site rationalisation at St. Athan. We anticipate that we should have recovered our investment at St. Athan by April 2007. By investing in that facility, in partnership with the Welsh Assembly, we have   provided south Wales with a state-of-the-art engineering capability that can form the centrepiece of the proposed St. Athan aerospace park. I therefore make no apology for taking the bold decision to build this world-class facility—a decision that was taken in good faith, based on the best available information at the time. Not to have done so would have immediately rendered DARA uncompetitive. We are continuing to examine, with the Welsh Assembly, a number of military and civil aerospace opportunities for the future use of the facility.
	The next area concerns DARA's helicopter repair and associated component businesses at Fleetlands in Hampshire and at Almondbank in Scotland. Those businesses continue to offer a cost-effective repair capability. The facilities will continue to employ in the   region of 860 people: more than 580 at Fleetlands and more than 270 in Almondbank. Again, I am announcing, subject to consultation, that those two parts of DARA should be taken to the market now to test whether sale might deliver improved effectiveness and value for money for our armed forces and, again, a better long-term future for the work force.
	I come now to DARA's engine maintenance business at Fleetlands in Hampshire. Regrettably, this business has become uncompetitive and is unable to sustain its market share. This has followed DARA's recent loss to Rolls-Royce, in open competition, of work on the RB199 engines for the Tornado aircraft. Also, DARA did not secure the Gnome and Gem helicopter engine repair contracts. That work will now be carried out by   Rolls-Royce. I have therefore decided, subject to consultation, that this business should close by April 2007, with the loss of 225 jobs in Hampshire.
	The final business unit in DARA is the electronics business, based in Sealand, north Wales, which employs some 600 people. This will be retained within MOD ownership. That business provides critical support to our current aircraft and has scope for further growth as we optimise the Department's future avionics support arrangements.
	I want to deal with ABRO's future. ABRO provides depth repair of much of the Army's fleet of armoured fighting vehicles, as well as other military vehicles and fighting equipment. Change at ABRO is essential for a   number of reasons. First, the Defence Logistics Organisation is introducing a series of reforms to improve the efficiency with which the fleet is being managed and maintained. That reduces the requirement for deep repair. Secondly, ABRO has become more efficient, reducing the required manpower. For example, the cost of base overhaul of the Warrior armoured vehicle has been reduced by 15 per cent. and the time taken cut by half, from 107 days to 53. As a result, it has   been possible to release 40 more vehicles back to front-line commands.
	Thirdly, the reality is that while ABRO has some unique capabilities, it is facing increasingly direct competition as a result of new and more efficient DLO contracting strategies. While there is no long-term strategic need to retain ABRO within MOD ownership, I judge that we will not be ready to expose all or parts of the business for sale for a number of years. However, the business needs to become significantly more efficient and some of the MOD's long-term support strategies need to mature. The consequence is that significant rationalisation is necessary so that ABRO can become more competitive.
	Subject to consultation, I am announcing that ABRO's armoured vehicle and engine facilities, together with its one-stop shop for unscheduled repairs   at Donnington in Shropshire, will close by March 2007, with up to 628 redundancies. Instead, depth maintenance and repair of the armoured fleet will be concentrated at Bovington in Dorset, retaining some 384 jobs, although up to 107 will be lost by 2010. ABRO's one-stop shops at Warminster in Wiltshire and Colchester in Essex will close by March 2007, with up to   281 redundancies. There will be up to a further 210   redundancies across other ABRO sites, including the head office function based in Andover in Hampshire.
	In addition, and to provide more efficient and effective service, ABRO will create a number of new smaller facilities closer to the Army front-line customer, including in the Warminster and Colchester areas. Up to 165 new posts will be created. Having rationalised its   core defence business, ABRO will be looking to develop profitable commercial revenue across the defence sector and beyond into other markets. There are no guarantees of success, and of course we must ensure that the taxpayers' position is protected, but if it can become much more competitive, ABRO could have the potential to grow into new markets. It has already had some success in the rail maintenance and public sector fleet management markets.
	I pay tribute to the excellent service that the employees of DARA and ABRO have provided to our armed forces. The redundancies across both DARA and ABRO will have an impact on individuals and their families. I am particularly mindful of the impact of this   announcement on south Wales, Donnington in Shropshire, and Hampshire.
	We are working with the Welsh Assembly in Wales, and we will of course engage with the other regional bodies to mitigate the consequences of these necessary decisions and to provide appropriate outplacement services to help those affected. As a good example of that, we have already been able, through joint working with the Welsh Assembly, to attract ATC Lasham, a civil commercial aircraft maintenance and repair company, to St. Athan, creating up to 300 new jobs. We will help those affected by these announcements to find alternative employment and we will make every effort to   use natural labour turnover, redeployment and voluntary redundancy to mitigate the loss. However, while we will seek to keep them to a minimum, a significant number of compulsory redundancies can be expected.
	We are committed to modernising our armed forces. To do so, we must continually look for more efficient support solutions to enable us to invest more resource to support our men and women in the front line. These changes are an essential part of that strategy.

Gerald Howarth: I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of what has been an extremely lengthy statement, and for his courtesy in affording me more than the conventional amount of time to consider it.
	I doubt whether I am alone in experiencing a shudder every time this Government announce a plan to modernise. If it relates to our institutions, it generally means to destroy. In the case of our national defence, it usually heralds a cut. Sadly, today's announcement appears to be no exception.
	I feel particularly sorry for the DARA operation in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith). The Government built up hopes of creating a substantial aviation repair facility to provide a valuable skills base in south Wales, only to   dash them again. Just months after agreeing a   £70 million investment in the Red Dragon site, a new   chief executive, Archie Hughes, was brought in to   undertake the challenging task of preparing the business for sale. No sooner had he arrived than Ministers promptly announced the removal of Tornado GR4 work to RAF Marham, cutting the ground from beneath him and his team. That followed the transfer of Harrier work to RAF Cottesmore early last year, at a   cost to DARA St. Athan of 550 jobs. Removing business from a company is not a sensible way to sell it as a going concern.
	The indecision over DARA has led to what can only be described as a shambolic state of affairs, and great uncertainty for a work force to whom the Minister has rightly paid tribute—some reward they have had for their commitment. I have a number of questions to ask the Minister in respect of DARA.
	First, what was the result of the market testing carried out by Morgan Stanley earlier this year? Is it true that there has been no serious expression of interest in a purchase? Secondly, can he tell us how the front-line servicing operation for Harriers at RAF Cottesmore is performing? Is it true that, as Amicus claims, the cost of transferring work from DARA St. Athan to Cottesmore was substantial?
	The Minister says that he intends to remove all fast-jet work from St. Athan, but what about the Hawk contract currently placed there, which he did not mention? He said that the VC10 business has been transferred there, but that he is planning to market-test that, too—I presume that he is going to sell it, so what will be left of St. Athan if that goes? He said that DARA had been unable to secure commercial aviation repair business following the rundown of military work, so what is his plan for the future of the facility? I dare say that his hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan will put that question to him even more vigorously.
	Again, the Minister said that he was planning to sell   the helicopter repair business at DARA Fleetlands, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for   Gosport (Peter Viggers). If that goes, what will be   left there? Can he explain why, uniquely, DARA's electronics business at Sealand will not be market-tested, when that is apparently being done with everything else?
	As for ABRO, that organisation has been subject to a steady process of attrition. In July, the Ministry of Defence announced the loss of 250 jobs across the country, with today's phase 2 leading to a further 1,061 net redundancies. The NAO's major repair and overhaul report of 2002—I acknowledge that it is from three years ago, but I would welcome the Minister's response—stated:
	"Despite trends towards contractor logistics support, however, parts of industry acknowledge that they do not have well developed repair and overhaul capabilities. Some manufacturers are therefore looking to ABRO to provide this expertise and capability. In addition, Alvis Vehicles Limited and Vickers Defence Systems both entered into partnering arrangements with ABRO in 2001. And ABRO intends to work more closely with other potential industrial partners on future equipment programmes."
	Can the Minister tell us whether the deficiency identified by the NAO has been resolved?
	Will the Minister explain why he now sees no further need for deep repair for military land vehicles? It seems that the closure of the one-stop shops at Warminster and Colchester will take out a whole capability. He referred to smaller units being placed there, but what will they do that is not currently carried out by the existing one-stop shops? Although we welcome any moves genuinely designed to make the logistics back-up for our armed forces more efficient, we shall resist measures that have the effect of so cutting our logistics capability that they starve the front line of vital support, or which eliminate scope for spare capacity that may be required during conflict. It is against that yardstick that we shall judge today's announcement.
	Our front-line forces are at full stretch and they need to have confidence that the essential back-up is actually there. My initial fear is that the announcement today represents a substantial cut in capability, which far from reinforcing the front line will only serve to weaken it.

Adam Ingram: That shows that one should not give out a statement too far in advance. The hon. Gentleman should look at his own statements in the run-up to the last election—statements on which the Conservatives campaigned. Does he remember the James report? It referred to savings of £1.6 billion in addition to the £2.8 billion we have announced, taking £4.4 billion out of defence logistics support. It proposed a sell-off of ABRO and DARA. It did not propose to test the market, but made a simple commitment to sell it off, along with the Warship Support Agency and everything else to do with defence agencies. I can take some criticism—I am sure I will get it—but not from the Conservative party.
	In terms of DARA St. Athan, I set out why the business has contracted: because of platforms being taken out of service—that was going to happen anyway; they were just brought out of service earlier—and because increased periods between maintenance reduces the number of aircraft going downstream. It is also a result of the transfer of the Harrier and the Tornado to RAF main operating bases. That means that the totality of the workflow had ceased to exist, by and large. Of course, the work could have remained there, but it would have done so at cost greater than that which I set out in my statement.
	I indicated that the savings made as a result of the Harrier transfer were substantial and they will be replicated for the Tornado. If the view is that the RAF main operating bases cannot maintain those aircraft, it is a significant charge—effectively, the hon. Gentleman is saying that the technicians cannot maintain aircraft to the same standards and ability as those within DARA.
	The purpose of market testing is to find out if there is an expression of interest. If there is, we will have to see if it satisfies us in terms of cost and guaranteed support for the future, with the element of risk contained within that. There is no guarantee that market testing will necessarily lead to the sale of VC10 business, although I   must say that I am under some pressure to do that. Whoever buys it could, effectively, grow the capacity of the engineering aerospace work that is carried out at St.   Athan, because the large manufacture capability could bring in other work using the facilities built there.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about Fleetlands and the decision to take that to the market; again, it is proving to be effective. It is right that we test the market on helicopter support, using the same criteria for the fast-jet business and for the rest of the fixed-wing business. In one sense, that is not too dissimilar to what the hon. Gentleman was campaigning for before the election, although he was not going to market; he was going to sell to the first bidder. We will market-test to see if there is a bidder and then get value from that.
	Sealand is being retained within the MOD for a good reason—it does very important work at present. With the Typhoon coming along, we believe that it is important that capacity be retained at Sealand. We are looking into whether we can invest to give the work force a better future, either in the public sector or in an area where market testing may be necessary.
	As was said three years ago, the market has changed and ABRO is under intense competitive pressures. The way in which it is structured has made it inefficient, so we are rationalising. The depth support that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is going to Bovington, while other work will be distributed across other sites. As I   said in my statement, there will be 185 additional posts. The aim is to get closer to the customer and closer to front-line need.What we are taking from ABRO is excess capacity, not capability. The situation had to be assessed properly before we acted, and we will still have a 40 per cent. surge capability to meet any of the demands to which the hon. Gentleman rightly alluded.

John Smith: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of my utter dismay at the incoherence of the Government's policy of depth support for their front-line military aircraft, which will undermine the RAF's capability in the defence of the nation. In the light of his statement, can he assure me that his Department will work very closely with the Welsh Assembly Government to retain as much of the   highly skilled work force at St. Athan as possible, both by helping to secure more aviation business for the area and by expanding the DARA VC10 work that will be market-tested? Will my right hon. Friend also tell me whether he will accept in-house bids for any market testing of DARA business?

Adam Ingram: I know of my hon. Friend's deep concern. He has been constant in both his comments and his trenchant criticisms. I pay tribute to what has been a high-profile campaign on his part, but I must balance what constitutes reality for the MOD against the reality in which he exists.
	My hon. Friend has asked me important questions. I   think it right to look to the future. Yes, we will work closely with the Welsh Assembly Government and other Government agencies to see what more can be done to protect the level of aerospace activity. I mentioned our success in attracting a major aircraft maintenance supplier, ATC Lasham, to the site. That will provide about 300 jobs, and the business could grow, but that is up to it. It is, after all, in the commercial sector. It may well be interested in purchasing the VC10 work. We will erect no barriers to any attempt to grow the business; indeed, we will do the opposite. We will do all that we can to ensure that that skilled work force is retained, and it may even increase over the years.
	I would not write out an in-house bid. We have shown a willingness to participate in such bids in the past, and will do so in the future. The future defence supply chain initiative, for instance, went in-house after an intensive period of assessment of what the market was offering. If a bid matches our requirements against commercial demand, we would be prepared to consider it if it offers value for money and covers the risk elements, and if we can ensure the sustainability of the fleet.

Michael Moore: The Minister's statement was important and I am grateful to him for providing an advance copy.
	No one would dispute that we must modernise logistics provision for the armed forces, but anyone who has studied reports from the Defence Committee and the NAO will be aware of the massive gap between aspiration and reality. The cost overruns highlighted by the Minister's own answers to parliamentary questions make the situation worse, not better. On a quick calculation, the Minister has announced a net 1,500 job losses, which will be a major blow to each of the communities represented. Can he give the House further details of the redundancy and welfare packages that the affected individuals will receive?
	On the fast jet business at St. Athan, can the right hon. Gentleman remind the House of how much the taxpayer has invested in the site in recent years? Can he set out, now or later, the figures that allow him to say that the investment will be recovered by April 2007? Given that he says that the commercial aviation repair business operates in a market with overcapacity, what will make the proposed St. Athan aerospace park viable?
	Finally, when the Minister announced the creation of the DARA and ABRO trading funds, the idea was to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of their operations. So what confidence can people in the armed forces, and the civilians who support them, have that when the MOD talks of modernisation, it does not just mean cost-cutting on a grand scale?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman says that we have failed to match aspiration with reality, but the Liberals have perhaps failed in that regard for the last 100 years or so. The standard redundancy and welfare package will of course apply, and every effort will be made to find alternative employment. Indeed, in some areas, one or two other developments are taking place within the MOD that could create a small number of none the less real opportunities. There may well be opportunities for people to relocate if they are mobile employees, and we   will do everything to assist in this regard. I do not minimise the scale of this announcement—that is why we are making an oral statement. It is right that we do so and that we be questioned on it.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about investment at St.   Athan. There was a view that the Red Dragon facility should not have been built—I do not know where the Liberals stood in that regard—and this issue certainly had to be debated. Had we not done so, we would not now be best placed. Nor would DARA at St.   Athan have been able to achieve many of the efficiencies that it subsequently achieved, which in turn assisted the rest of defence. As a result of that initiative, the investment in that project that was due to break even in 2008–09 will do so by 2007. I do not know whether we can release the relevant information—I know of no reason why not, but sometimes there are commercial or confidentiality issues—but if we can, we will.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to the commitment given to St. Athan's viability in announcements that were made when the trading funds were set up. That was so, but following what happened with the Warship Support Agency—new ways of delivering support to the fleet were examined—both the RAF and the Army decided to do something similar. This initiative was driven by people who realised that the previous arrangement was inefficient, ineffective and extremely costly. Was there a better way? Yes, there was, so we engaged consultants to look at the entire air support process in an end-to-end study. The new approach of reducing four levels of support to two emerged from that study.
	The hon. Gentleman may want to retain four levels of support, but I consider that inefficient. If we reduce them from four to two, such support can be provided at the main operating base, or at the other base. What happened was that the St. Athan business moved to Cottesmore and Marham, and the rotary fleet returned to a civilian base at Fleetlands, so the process is not   simply one way; it was carefully considered and   subjected to a thorough investment appraisal. Of course, that stacks up in terms of the benefits to defence.

David Wright: I have many constituents who work at Donnington, and I have to say that the Minister's decision today is plain wrong. It flies in the face of the Lyons review, which encourages us to move jobs to the midlands and the north. This decision simply reverses the Lyons proposals. I hope that he will think again, but if we are to proceed, I ask him to consider two issues. First, through a taskforce, will he work with Telford and Wrekin borough council, its leader, Councillor Keith Austin, and the regional development agency to try to secure new jobs and replacement jobs in Telford? Secondly, would he also look at the site on which the current ABRO plant sits, as there may be opportunities, working in partnership with   the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency, to increase the defence presence in that location and build on the proposed rail freight terminal for Telford in close proximity to the ABRO site?

Adam Ingram: I am sorry that my hon. Friend thinks that the decision is wrong, but I can well understand it. The work done there has been distributed not to the south-east, but to other areas; and I have already mentioned Bovington in Dorset. That is clearly a Lyons area and there will be a consolidation there. Obviously, when it comes to rationalisation, someone has to win and someone has to lose.
	I would also like to remind my hon. Friend of one salient fact. I have already mentioned the future defence supply chain initiative, which we announced earlier this year, and it should be noted that Donnington was the   beneficiary when the decision was taken to close Stafford and locate a large part of the main operation at Donnington, albeit with a rationalisation of a number of jobs. The defence footprint is there for a long time ahead.
	I am only too willing to assist as best I can with the taskforce in several areas. It is not just the Ministry of Defence that has a role to play, as we are doing our best to co-ordinate our efforts across government. My hon. Friend is right about the ABRO site. It will free up facilities, and DSDA, as part of the in-house process for the future defence supply chain, has indicated an interest in using some of those facilities, which may result in job creation. I admit that it will not match the loss of jobs, but it is an example of how we are attempting to provide the best logistic support while minimising the overall losses.

Peter Viggers: The Fleetlands aircraft repair yard in Gosport has been rationalised and reorganised time and again, but we have always drawn confidence from the fact that excellent facilities, combined with a loyal and skilled work force, will provide continuity for the yard's future. It has taken the present Government to prove that wrong.
	The Minister said that there was overcapacity in aircraft repair at present, but how can he be completely confident that it will continue, and what will he do if he finds that overcapacity has not continued and that we   are short of capacity? I challenge him to say, in the context of modernisation, that the work force has failed fully to co-operate with any of the many changes imposed on the Fleetlands aircraft yard. What have they failed to do and why have they been put in this position?
	Finally, so many changes have been announced that I   believe that the work force will not accept this harsh judgment without having the opportunity to challenge it by talking to the Minister. Will he agree to a meeting and prove to us that the facts that he has given to underpin his judgment are correct?

Adam Ingram: I think the hon. Gentleman has made his mind up before listening to the facts. He says that he wants to hear the facts, and I would happy to discuss the details with the trade unions. I have said that the part of   the business at Fleetlands connected with engine support has lost major contracts in a competitive bid. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should have ignored that, placing on-costs on the defence budgets? If we are trying to drive efficiency into the system and make the yard competitive, we have to face the consequences of losing bids. That is what happened with engine support and it is not a consequence of any lack of commitment on the part of the work force. The hon. Gentleman is right that they have tried to achieve the new efficiency standards, but the contracts were at a mature point and had to be placed.
	The hon. Gentleman is asking an impossible question. He asks me to predict the future of the aerospace market in this country—I do not know how far ahead—but I   cannot do that. No one can do that. If he is saying that the MOD should retain facilities with inefficient operations at extra cost simply because something—we know not what—may happen in the future, he is not living in the real world. The other part of Fleetlands, however, has a future and I do not think that the hon.   Gentleman heard what I said. We took a decision, on which I thought the hon. Gentleman would compliment me, to move work from Army and naval bases back to Fleetlands, providing the civilian work force with greater opportunities for the future. I just wish that, in some of his criticisms, he would recognise that.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: People in my constituency who work at Fleetlands will   be deeply affected by today's announcement, and I   should like to express my support for those who will lose their jobs, and for their families. I thank my right hon. Friend for his assurances that all possible help will be given to mitigate the effects of job losses and to help people find alternative employment. There is never a good time for people to lose their jobs, but does my right hon. Friend agree that at least they have a better chance of finding alternative employment when the economy is   successful and thriving? I do not underplay the devastating effect of job losses on people and their families, but it is the Government's responsibility—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I   think that the Minister can answer that point with what the hon. Lady has asked so far.

Adam Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for her balanced views, and she is right to say that there is never a good time for people to lose their jobs. My father was an aircraft fitter who moved in and out of employment under the Tory Governments of many years past. I   sometimes say that I have oil in my blood, and that makes today's announcement extremely difficult for me, but we have to do what is right for defence. I am grateful that my hon. Friend understands that, and she is right in what she says about job losses in a strong economy. We have created a strong economy and will do everything in our power to ensure that the rest of the Fleetlands facility is maintained. I am sure that many of her constituents are part of what is a first-class work force with a long-term future. The question that we must consider is whether that future lies with the Ministry of Defence or private industry. If people go into industry, there is always the possibility that the rate of growth in that sector will be even greater.

Adam Price: The Minister will understand that today's statement is a bitter blow to people in the communities represented by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith). In respect of the sale of the VC10 business, how will he   get right the balance between maximising the return on public investment and securing the work force's long-term future? Will potential purchasers have to give guarantees about employment levels and rights, and about the long-term continuation of the remaining business at St. Athan?

Adam Ingram: We must always balance public investment against all the other issues involved. We must take risk into account as we test the market, and make a judgment about it. We must also ask questions about the identity and commitment of potential purchasers, and determine whether they can guarantee future support. If they cannot make that guarantee, they can go no further with the purchase. I should add that BAE Systems also has an interest in this matter, as it is the design authority.
	I suppose that one should never say never, but I see no   possibility that the work will move away from St.   Athan. With the right ingredients, and if the right company purchases it, the facility could have a greater ability to provide support for wide-bodied, fixed-wing aircraft. Clearly, what is being lost in terms of fast jet support is very painful, and that loss is happening over a relatively short period, but we are trying to put in place the potential for future growth. We will do everything that we can to that end, as we do not want to lose the key workers in that area.
	Finally, I remind the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) that the VC10 is used extensively in support of NATO forces in Iraq. I do not think that his party supports what we are doing in that particular area.

Doug Henderson: I do not want to question my right hon. Friend about any particular element of his statement, as I shall leave that to hon. Members with constituencies that are affected. However, does he accept that the House needs to recognise the general principle involved in this matter—that the Ministry of Defence's logistics organisation can be improved in many ways? The problems—a lot of duplication, and many inefficient structures, both geographical and otherwise—need to be tackled, regardless of which party is in office. The current Government have been tackling the problems and, although I know that my right hon. Friend does not need encouragement, I urge them to press on. If we do not make the savings, we cannot pass them on to the front line, where they are really needed.

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment, and he is right that we have to tackle those inefficiencies. Every penny saved is a penny that goes to the front line. The arrangement with the Treasury is that if we do not save the £2.8 billion, there will not be an investment in the front line. We have to do it. It will be a hard target to reach, but it will ultimately be good for our defence and the men and women on the front line. That is why I will continue to press on with it.

Gregory Campbell: Are other areas of the Ministry of Defence subject to the   modernisation process likely to yield similarly substantial job losses in the next five years? If so, will there be any consequences for MOD employees in Northern Ireland?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman tempts me again. I   visited the Province last Friday. It was not a public visit, but I met the Royal Irish and MOD civilian staff. The closure of Army bases in Northern Ireland will have a significant impact and we are working out how best to   deal with that. We know the numbers, but we are examining the quantum of the financial consequences. However, the consequences arise not from the efficiency savings, but from the peace process that is under way.
	We will scrutinise other parts of the MOD to see if there are better ways of doing things. We have made some announcements about co-locating headquarters. If there are two parts of an operation, it is sensible to co-locate them if the business case stacks up. We will continue to consider such cases, because we have to achieve a reduction of more than 20,000 back office jobs over the next few years across the MOD to ensure that we achieve the £2.8 billion saving.
	I remind the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) of his additional commitment to £1.6 billion savings on top of our £2.8 billion. We are finding the latter hard, so I do not know where he would get £4.4 billion savings.

Mark Tami: I welcome the statement about DARA at Sealand, although I regret the job losses elsewhere. May we have a period of stability now? That is vital, because having one review after another saps the morale of employees. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to secure the long-term future of DARA at Sealand?

Adam Ingram: I said in my opening statement that there is no strategic need for Sealand to remain in the MOD, but it is important as we introduce the new aircraft, as well as for the legacy systems. High grade work is carried out at Sealand and it is essential for the new Typhoon that that be maintained. The potential for Sealand is great. Investment will be required to change some of the tooling and support equipment to move from analogue to digital avionics, and that could allow Sealand—whether it is in the public or private sector—the opportunity to join the Typhoon support and supply chain for other countries. I cannot predict that that will happen, but if that part of the business is properly resourced and configured, it could win such additional business. Sealand has a good long-term future.

James Arbuthnot: I am grateful to the Minister for providing me with advance notice of the statement. Earlier this year, the Defence Committee said that one of the reasons why DARA was created was to provide assured access to repair capacity and also capacity for surge workload. Is the Minister confident that, given the announcement he has made today and the Treasury-strapped budget that he has, such surge capacity will continue to exist?

Adam Ingram: I am not going to agree that we have a Treasury-strapped budget. I have always said that the budget is under pressure: if it were not, we would not be trying to save £2.8 billion. We have had the largest increase in real terms for 20 years, although any Department will say that it wants more support.
	The assured capacity and the surge workload are part of the risk that has to be examined. Although Ministers ultimately have to sit in judgment, the review has been delivered by senior RAF personnel.
	I make this point: if what we were doing was wrong pilots would not fly those fast jets. If they thought for a moment that the aircraft were unsafe or had not been properly maintained, they would not take them into the sky. That is the final arbiter. Much of the work on fast jets was already being carried out at the main operating bases. What we have done is transferred it to those areas. There is still an element of private company support alongside it, although the work is carried out predominantly by RAF technicians and personnel. They need that capability when aircraft go to the front line, to maintain them wherever they are posted. The judgment of those who need to examine such things in detail is that, yes, there is an assured capacity and, yes, it can meet the surge demand. That is the really big issue; that is what they are there for in the first place, to ensure that they have aircraft capable of meeting the needs of the country.

Julie Morgan: May I too express deep disappointment and concern about the proposals for DARA St. Athan? It is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith), but many of my constituents work there. Is my right hon. Friend aware of how huge the loss is for the area and of how great the sense of betrayal and outrage is among the workers and the unions, who have campaigned so hard on the issue? Is he aware of the loss of high-quality apprenticeships that offer opportunities for young people in the area? Their withdrawal will threaten the local college, so what will he do to help?

Adam Ingram: I do recognise that there is a huge loss. It does not come easy to me, or any Defence or Labour Minister, to make such announcements. I do not feel a sense of betrayal. I have tried to set out the logic of what we are doing: why it is inevitable, why it is good for defence and why we believe that it best configures that aspect of logistic support for the RAF. My hon. Friend made a particular point about apprenticeships. I have said elsewhere that bits of British industry would not exist without MOD investment, and I sometimes question what the rest of British industry is doing about apprenticeships in the aerospace sector. We are mindful of the issue, however, and will work with the Welsh Assembly to try to find a way of ensuring that the apprenticeship stream is maintained. It may not be wholly to do with the MOD, but we realise that it is vital. It is not simply for the MOD to provide aerospace apprenticeships; the rest of the industry has something to contribute as well.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister has spent time in Iraq and will have seen ABRO in action at the front line. Does he agree that these days the distinction between the front line and the   logistics tail is increasingly blurred, and thus his   announcement today is not just a blow to some hypothetical background backroom boys but is in fact a blow to our defence commitment overall?

Adam Ingram: No, I do not. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says. There is increasingly a blurring, but things must also be carefully defined. We cannot put non-uniform personnel into areas of risks, and such judgments have to come into play at all times. In my statement, I said that part of the reconfiguration of ABRO is to put capacity closer to the front-line customer. Admittedly, that will be in the UK, but it is closer to where the vehicles will be and the work will be integrated with that of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, which may have a beneficial spill-out in terms of front-line deployment. We are making the changes to improve support, not to diminish it. We have to reconfigure ABRO to that size to make it capable of withstanding the competitive pressures out there. Industry is well marshalled and understands the volume of work out there. We are seeking to retain ABRO jobs for a good number of years in the future, to ensure that we give that key support to the Army in everything it does, either in the UK or in areas of conflict.

Madeleine Moon: Does the Minister recognise that today is a dark day for many families along the whole stretch of the M4 corridor, including those in my constituency? Many of those families' menfolk will be incoherent with frustration and anger, given that the work force at DARA have met every possible hurdle and every target thrown at them to cut costs, to increase efficiency, to meet time scales and to prove efficient and effective. Will he acknowledge that   today's decision is no fault of the quality of workmanship of those dedicated people in that work force?

Adam Ingram: I can agree completely that the decision is not down to a lack of quality on the part of the work force. If there were any doubt about that, the MOD, working in concert with the Welsh Assembly, would find it had to attract others on to the site to use some of that capability. Of course, the Welsh Assembly was able to announce earlier this year that ATC Lasham would come on to the site, and we are working actively with the Welsh Assembly to extol the virtues of what is going on there. I pay tribute to the work force for all that they sought to do, but when legacy platforms have been take out of service, the work flow is not there. When we make a decision, because of a very careful financial analysis, that four levels of support can be collapsed into two, and the consequences of either moving back to St. Athan or moving forward into Marham and Cottesmore stack up in favour of the latter, we must do what is right for defence. That is my job, and I believe that we are doing what is right for defence and what is right for the country as well.

Mark Pritchard: This is a huge slap in the face for my constituents, 628 of whom will lose their jobs as a result of today's announcement—40 per cent. of the overall job losses. Are the MOD and the Government committed to Shropshire, which has a huge defence sector? We have the defence training review at Cosford. Sapphire House, which is in the constituency of my colleague the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), is under review, and we now hear today's announcement about the DLO, ABRO and the defence centre. In particular, I am interested in what the Minister will say on the future of Donnington. Are the Government committed to Donnington? Are they committed to Shropshire?

Adam Ingram: FDSCI is the acronym that I will give the   hon. Gentleman. We have made a commitment about the in-house bid. He would probably not have supported the in-house bid; he would have preferred to go to one of the private sector companies, which, of course, may not have decided to locate at Donnington. I accept that there are reductions as a consequence of making part of the support to the MOD and the front line, again, much more efficient.
	The hon. Gentleman mentions the DTR. Well, the DTR is out there, but it will probably be anything up to 18 months before we reach a conclusion. A number of bids have come in, and all of them must be evaluated. I   do not know whether he is saying that we should ignore the quality of the bids and just give a commitment to Shropshire. That is not the way in which Ministers should make a decision. We must balance the various bids and decide where the best benefit lies.

Mark Pritchard: The Government are offering a subsidy to Wales in the DTR.

Adam Ingram: I find that offensive, in a sense. I am making an announcement today with, 500 mainly engineering jobs being lost to DARA St. Athan. That is not a subsidy to Wales; it is very painful. It will be very difficult, and we must work our way through it. The MOD will look at what is best for the United Kingdom and best for our front-line soldiers. That is what we must seek to achieve, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was aware of that and be on our side.

Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, it is a sad day across the House. We are talking about almost 2,000 jobs going directly. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the impact on the supply and service industry? I do not know how many jobs may be lost there. Following today's review, can he guarantee that those platforms that have been maintained in the past will be as good for our front-line troops in the   future?

Adam Ingram: I do not quite know what point my hon. Friend is making about the assessment regarding the supply and service industry.

Lindsay Hoyle: Parts.

Adam Ingram: Of course, the flow of parts is a key component of any support mechanism. If my hon. Friend is talking about his other concerns regarding the   situation in Chorley and munitions support, we have put in place a comprehensive agreement between ourselves and BAE Systems to ensure that the munitions supply chain is maintained for the good reason that that is 110 per cent. essential.
	As for whether the new platforms will be better than the old ones, I have to say yes. They are certainly more expensive. I do not know which platforms and maintenance my hon. Friend is talking about, but we want to ensure that we get the best capabilities to maintain the supply chain and the supply and support mechanism. What we are doing is fundamentally correct. I know that the process is painful and difficult, but if we did not do it, we would be spending money unwisely on defence.

Bob Russell: The Minister says that ABRO has become more efficient. Does he accept that   many of the loyal, dedicated and skilled work force at Colchester ABRO will lose their jobs? He has combined Warminster and Colchester in the assessment of job losses and creations, so will he give me a breakdown of the figures—I assume that the respective figures must be known? When Colchester is being developed as a super-garrison, what is the logic behind taking away logistical support to such an extent? Is it not the case that what was before the Minister was the fact that the REME Workshops, as ABRO used to be known, sit on a prime edge-of-town-centre site and that we are thus seeing asset stripping?

Adam Ingram: No, we are not. The hon. Gentleman asked for figures, so these are the round figures based on the current best information. The maximum number of redundancies at Colchester will be 96, after which 69 personnel will still be employed in the Colchester area. Those people will primarily be in barracks, so the support for the brand new multi-billion pound facility will be closer to the REME support. I was pleased to cutone of the first sods for that facility in the hon. Gentleman's presence not so long ago. We are retaining close engagement between the support end of ABRO and the engineering end of the Army. That is what the Army wants, so we are meeting its requirements.

Chris Bryant: I am sure that the vast majority of my constituents will understand that the Ministry of Defence has to deliver operational efficiency for every single penny at the front line. However, does my right hon. Friend understand that many of my constituents will feel perplexed, angry and frustrated when they see a Government building up DARA at St.   Athan, but then effectively dismantling it only a few years later? When he talks to the Welsh Assembly Government, will he please ensure that the support package for my constituents who lose their jobs will be provided not only near to St. Athan, but close to the valley communities in which people live, many of which will be just as affected as the Vale of Glamorgan?

Adam Ingram: I hope that those people will not be perplexed after they have heard our reasoning and logic, although I well understand the anger of people who lose their jobs. I make this point about the Red Dragon facility. If it had not been built, DARA would have had no future. Anyone who has followed the matter will realise that I took a long time before reaching that conclusion. We were able to deliver the facility because of close engagement with the Welsh Development Agency. There was a bit of trading with the agency because it said that certain things would happen on the   back of the development, so it had to make a contribution to the overall package because of its role on economic attraction. That investment was correct. The facility still remains and will be highly marketable. VC10 work will remain and its capacity to attract a major player, ATC Lasham, to St. Athan shows that there are prospects for development if we get the right ingredients. That is what we are seeking to do—we are not walking away, and we will maintain our commitment while we have an MOD interest in that area.

Christopher Fraser: Given the work that RAF Marham in my constituency will undertake, can the Minister give me an assurance that the decision will not be detrimental to local employment on the base nor result in additional environmental damage or noise pollution?

Adam Ingram: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to stop noise pollution perhaps he does not want an air force base in his locality. RAF bases cause noise, but they bring a great deal of useful and important work. We must ensure that the RAF, which deploys fast jets to the front line has the capability to sustain them in theatre. That is important, and it goes back to my point that the pilots who fly those jets are the ultimate arbiters. At the   end of the day, they do not care who maintains those jets as long as they do so properly and provide an effective fighting machine for the front line. That will only be the case, however, when RAF personnel work alongside them. As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that opportunities will be lost, RAF Marham is gaining an opportunity and has a long-term future. I should have thought that he would welcome that.

Derek Conway: The   Minister may recall that last week I pressed the Secretary of State on the availability of Warrior armoured fighting vehicles in Iraq. Given his statement this afternoon, in which he rightly told the House that the overhaul time has been cut by half to just over a couple of months, will his new costing strategies allow that target still to be met? The shortage of that excellent vehicle matters to people on the front line, and he was right to highlight the implications of his statement for those individuals.

Adam Ingram: I think that the hon. Gentleman was complimenting me on the announcement. If that is the case, I welcome it, because I have not received many compliments today. However, he is right. The proposal aims to improve the throughput of vehicles, so that they are not sitting in a maintenance yard but are being worked on and turned around and can reach the front line. We have increased throughput and tempo, as it is important that front-line soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are properly supplied. However, we must also tackle logistics, which is why difficult decisions must be taken.

Daniel Kawczynski: I cried out, "Shame" when the Minister made the announcement about Donnington, because many of my constituents work at that facility. It has come as a great shock to me, as well as to the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). I concur with everything that they said, but I have two further questions for the Minister. Will he come to Shropshire to explain his decision to our constituents, and what retraining schemes does he intend to put in place for them? There was a great deal of help for Rover in the run-up to the   election, but I hope that, even though there is not a   general election in the offing, he will help our constituents to find new jobs.

Adam Ingram: I could have shouted "Shame" at the hon. Gentleman, given that, during the election, he campaigned to get rid of ABRO. His party did not want to try to reconfigure it, or make it better able to deal with future supply chain needs. The decision on the future defence supply chain initiative was a good one, as it provides a long-term commitment. I reiterate the point that the winner of the FDSCI contract competed against the private sector. At the election, the hon. Gentleman campaigned for the private sector to run almost the entire supply chain for the armed forces. If he wishes to see some shame, perhaps he should look in the mirror.
	As for retraining schemes, cross-Government agencies are working to minimise the effect of the announcement on individuals. Responsibility does not rest with the MOD alone. One of my hon. Friends asked whether we would engage a taskforce, and the answer is yes. We will do all that we can to mitigate the effects of the proposals. The Defence Storage and Distribution Agency already has a commitment, and it will look at the facilities to see whether additional jobs can be provided.

Roger Williams: Representations from across the sector would lead us to believe that the Government have announced a poor decision today, and only time will tell how the well-being of the men and women who serve in the Army and the   RAF will be affected. The announcement is demoralising for south Wales. The St. Athan aerospace park sounds good, but it will have an empty ring unless it is accompanied by real investment. Will the Minister provide an assurance on behalf of the MOD that any resources from the sale of the VC10 servicing facility will be available in combination with funds from the Welsh Assembly to make the aerospace park an attractive place for industry to relocate?

Adam Ingram: There is a long answer and a short answer, and I shall try to give the short one. The hon. Gentleman has asked for investment in St. Athan, but what was Red Dragon? It was an investment, which I   was criticised for making, so I hope that he welcomed it, because it is an opportunity. Does the VC10 facility provide a good platform for future growth? Yes, potentially, and we will work with all partners—the Welsh Assembly and the private sector—to try and ensure that growth occurs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises and welcomes the fact that the money saved by all those efficiency measures goes to the   front line.

Brian Binley: Will the Minister confirm that in his response to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), he said that he had not reduced ABRO's capability, but had increased its efficiency? If, as I believe, he said that, will he explain the efficiency measures that he has taken to allow the sizable reduction of 944 jobs while retaining the same capability, or is the truth that he kept those people employed until after the election, even though there was no economic case for doing so?

Adam Ingram: That is absolute rubbish. A new chief executive was appointed; he was charged with examining ABRO's structure; and, as a professional manager, he then developed a plan. He concluded that reconfiguration is the   only way to survive given   the layers of overheads,   inefficiencies and uncompetitiveness and the new, extremely competitive, aggressive marketplace. He brought his plan, which we studied and examined, to me, and we have introduced the proposals, so jobs were not protected because of the election. If the hon. Gentleman had followed the process, he would know about the dramatic announcements that I made in the run-up to the   election. Earlier, one of my hon. Friends asked me to press on, which we have done regardless of electoral considerations. In defence, we do what is right for defence.

BILL PRESENTED

Childcare

Secretary Ruth Kelly, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Mr. Secretary Hain, Secretary Alan Johnson, Beverley Hughes and Margaret Hodge, presented a Bill to make provision about the powers and duties of local authorities and other bodies in England in relation to the improvement of the well-being of young children; to make provision about the powers and duties of local authorities in England and Wales in relation to the provision of childcare and the provision of information to parents and other persons; to make provision about the regulation and inspection of childcare provision in England; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 80].

Breastfeeding etc.

David Kidney: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to prevent or stop a person in charge of a child who is otherwise permitted to be in a public place or licensed premises from feeding milk to that child in that place or on those premises; to make provision in relation to the promotion of breastfeeding; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill proposes to address some deep weaknesses in   our society's attitude to breastfeeding. Those weaknesses are shown in England and Wales in a lower rate of mothers starting to breastfeed and a higher rate of mothers giving up breastfeeding than in countries of a comparable size and wealth to ours. The Bill would broaden the role of the Department of Health in supporting families in the decisions that they make about breastfeeding. It would also stop a form of discrimination that deters parents from feeding their young children in public places.
	The promotion of breastfeeding is necessary. Breast milk is best. Research findings are piling up showing that milk is the ideal first food for most babies, providing complete nutrition to meet the unique requirements of infants. That research tells us that breast milk leads to fewer infections in babies—for example, gastro-intestinal tract infections—leads to healthy hearts in the long term, improves cognitive development, brings lower risks of allergies from environmental factors, offers protection against insulin-dependent diabetes, and potentially brings improved bone development. Breastfeeding is also good for the health of mums. Women who breastfeed may benefit from a reduced risk of pre-menopausal ovarian and breast cancer, greater weight loss if they breastfeed for at least six months, and a reduced risk of osteoporosis in later life.
	Because of the certainty of those benefits, the World Health Organisation and our own Department of Health recommend that infants be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of their lives. Yet despite that recommendation, in England and Wales about one third of mothers do not breastfeed from the outset, and by four months of age only about a quarter of babies are still receiving breast milk. It is true that breastfeeding is not possible for a small number of mothers, but for most who do not start or give up too soon there are practical and cultural obstacles that we should sweep away.
	The Scandinavian countries top the league table of breastfeeding. In Norway, 97 per cent. of new mothers start to breastfeed, with 80 per cent. still doing so at six   months. The compelling health benefits mean that we should try harder in this country to match those more successful societies. The Bill would require the Department of Health to make arrangements to support and encourage families to ensure greater rates of breastfeeding in our country. The Government are committed to the promotion of breastfeeding—they already fund projects on best breastfeeding practice—but all parents of newborn babies should have access to education, supervision and support. I know from my contacts that many midwives, health visitors, National Childbirth Trust and La Leche League breastfeeding counsellors and others want to help to deliver a more comprehensive support service for all parents, especially mothers wishing to breastfeed. The Government can do more. For example, the NCT calls for a breastfeeding action plan covering training, baby-friendly facilities and peer support.
	It is also important to involve employers. It is clear from the work that I have done in my constituency that many employers need help to understand the needs of employees who come back to work after maternity leave and still wish to breastfeed.
	The Bill is partly about the health benefits of breastfeeding and ensuring that parents know about those benefits and have support in taking them up, but it is also intended to stamp out discrimination against parents. They want to live normal lives after the birth of their children but can be deterred from venturing out to places where other members of the public have no problem in going because they find a prejudice against feeding babies there. I have heard parents complain about a lack of family-friendly places to feed babies, whether it is breastfeeding or bottle-feeding. Some places try to stop it; others try to suggest that baby-feeding is best done in the toilets.
	It beats me that so many people can ogle pictures of women's breasts in newspapers and magazines on open public display, yet complain about that most natural of sights—a mother breastfeeding her baby. Nevertheless, that is what happens. In 2003, a survey for midwives, nurses and health visitors found that nearly four out of 10 breastfeeding mothers and two out of 10 bottle-feeding mothers experienced problems in finding convenient places to feed their babies when out and about.
	I am grateful to the NCT for some examples from its casebook. In a Birmingham restaurant, a GP who was discreetly feeding her baby at a table was asked to stop or go to the toilet. A patient in a GP's surgery was asked to leave the waiting room even though another mother was feeding a baby with a bottle. A woman at an ideal homes exhibition was reduced to tears when a man released a volley of abuse, picked up and threw away her pushchair and snatched the cushion against which she was leaning, all because she was breastfeeding at the exhibition. A newspaper recently reported that a doctor was told not to breastfeed in a Derby store because it was a gentleman's outfitters. Stevenage citizens advice bureau reports a case of a nursing mother threatened with homelessness who was told that she could not bring her child with her to the court hearing at Hitchin.
	In aiming to outlaw such discrimination, the Bill does   not discriminate between breastfeeding and bottle-feeding—it applies to and gives the same protection in each case. It applies to all children under the age of two.
	The proposals are not new. For years, UNICEF has called for legislation to protect breastfeeding mothers who want to feed their babies in public areas. UNICEF does not simply wait for Parliament to act—it has developed a United Kingdom baby-friendly initiative as part of a global programme with the World Health Organisation. The initiative works with health services to improve practice in supporting breastfeeding. We should give such steps legal backing to encourage breastfeeding. The Bill would do that.
	I have said that the idea is not new. Elaine Smith, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, successfully steered a similar law on to the statute book north of the border last year. Earlier this year, I was present at a meeting of the all-party group on maternity services when a Health Minister was asked to introduce a similar law in England and Wales. A similar request was made of another Health Minister at a meeting in my constituency in Stafford, again, earlier this year. The NCT supports the proposal. I therefore have support from UNICEF, the all-party group and the NCT. Scotland has already enacted such a law and the policy is fully in line with the policies of the World Health Organisation and our Government.
	I leave the last word to Angela Blanchard, an NCT breastfeeding counsellor in my constituency. She said:
	"In my 10 years of being a breastfeeding counsellor for NCT, the issue of breastfeeding in public places has come up in every single ante-natal session that I have facilitated—both for NCT and the NHS. Mothers-to-be say things like, 'I'd like to breastfeed but what about when I go out in public?' There is a great amount of fear and anxiety around this. Legal protection would be hugely empowering."
	I beg to ask leave to introduce such legal protection.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Kidney, Annette Brooke, Mrs.   Janet Dean, Paul Farrelly, Sandra Gidley, Dr.   Evan Harris, Dr. Brian Iddon, Laura Moffatt, Julie   Morgan and Mrs. Betty Williams.

Breastfeeding etc.

Mr. David Kidney accordingly presented a Bill to make it an offence to prevent or stop a person in charge of a child who is otherwise permitted to be in a public place or licensed premises from feeding milk to that child in that place or on those premises; to make provision in relation to the promotion of breastfeeding; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 November, and to be printed [Bill 79].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Electoral Administration Bill

(Clauses Nos. 9 to 18; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to Part 2 or Part 3 of the Bill; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the procedure to be followed in an election on the death of a candidate; and any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to candidates standing in more than one constituency at an election)
	Considered in Committee.

[Sir Michael Lord in the Chair]

Michael Lord: I advise the Committee that the first joint report of last Session from the Constitutional Affairs and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Committees on Electoral Registration and the evidence taken before the Constitutional Affairs Committee on 2 November are relevant to today's proceedings. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

Clause 9
	 — 
	Registration officers: duty to takenecessary steps

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 9, page 6, line 15, at end insert—
	'(1)   Each registration officer must take all necessary steps to remove individuals from the electoral register who are no longer eligible to remain on the register once they cease to be eligible.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No.   30, in page 6, line 18, at end insert
	'and to maximise the number of those entitled to register who do so.'.
	No. 1, in page 6, line 26, at end insert—
	'(ca)   ensuring that registers are compiled in accordance with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 2001;'.
	No. 28, in page 6, line 31, at end insert—
	'(f)   inspecting any records held by any person or organisation as designated by the Secretary of State.'.
	No. 29, in page 6, line 36, at end add—
	'"9B   Duty to provide information to registration officers
	   The Secretary of State may require any person or organisation to provide all appropriate information to registration officers to assist them with the performance of their duties.".'.

Jonathan Djanogly: We welcome the intention of the Bill and the Government's belated recognition that all is not well in our once-envied electoral system. It is in urgent need of attention because there is much work to be done following years of neglect. While we support many of the Bill's provisions, there are problems with what it fails to include. That is certainly the case with part 2, and specifically with clause 9. The Bill contains many ideas, but very little is offered in terms of immediate and substantive reform of the electoral system.
	A survey conducted by MORI earlier this year found that 54 per cent. of the public think that postal voting has made it easier to commit electoral fraud. An even higher percentage thought that electronic voting would increase fraud: 74 per cent. thought that that would be the case with voting by text message and 55 per cent. with voting by website. What is needed is genuine reform that will re-establish the integrity of the electoral system. What is also needed is a Bill that will crack down on the fraud that is detracting from the electorate's faith in our democracy. What we have, however, is a Bill that   promises a lot, but does not deliver as much as it promises.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the MORI poll, which I think was conducted in May and June. Is he worried that such scientific research was conducted during a period in which there was wall-to-wall coverage in the press and on radio and television about postal ballot fraud? Surely, if changes are going to be made on the back of such research, it would have been better to carry it out at a more stable time.

Edward O'Hara: Order. Before the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr.   Djanogly) proceeds, I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the terms of the amendment. We are not at this point having a general debate on the Bill.

Jonathan Djanogly: To answer the question put by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), yes, if a survey were conducted at a different time, it might produce a different answer, but he will appreciate that there are real concerns about the integrity of our voting system. I certainly do not think that the Government would deny that.

Simon Hughes: I hope that my question is precisely on the matter for debate. One issue involving clear mischief is the repetition of names, either because people have moved and should have come off the register at address A when they registered at address B, or because they have registered in the same name at more than one place. Do the amendments, or the Bill, deal with that mischief? If   not, can we ensure between us that we do so? The Minister and I know that this is an issue not only in our borough but elsewhere.

Jonathan Djanogly: That is an issue that we shall come to later.
	We must be careful not to confuse the overriding need to preserve the integrity of the electoral system with the important but nevertheless secondary issue of increasing voter turnout. The registration process should provide an accurate, comprehensive and secure foundation for the conduct of elections. Registration is the building block on which all else rests. Without a credible system, talk of increasing voter turnout would only be counter-productive. We believe that British citizens should want to vote and should be proud of our democratic system. We also believe that steps need to be taken to facilitate that by making voting more secure and more accessible, but we do not believe in focusing on making it so easy to vote that people will vote just because it is easy to do so, rather than out of genuine democratic interest.
	For these reasons, I want to focus on what needs to be done to ensure confidence in the integrity of our system. Preventing offences is clearly a more effective way to build public confidence than prosecuting offenders.

Andrew Love: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman to address an essential point. Do the Opposition believe that it should be a priority for electoral registration officers to maximise the number of people on the register, to ensure the highest possible turnout at elections?

Jonathan Djanogly: We believe that and we support the provisions that say it, but we want electoral registration officers also to be responsible for ensuring that people who should not be on the roll are not on it. Indeed, the   integrity of the system is, from our point of view, the priority issue.
	Registration is the biggest single issue about which the   Electoral Commission receives inquiries from the public. Between the start of February this year and   polling day, the commission fielded almost 36,000 telephone calls about registration, representing two thirds of all inquiries. There were a further 318,000 visitors to the commission's voter registration website. Young people are most likely to be unregistered, with 16 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds unregistered—double the national average. The figure is similar for ethnic minorities and the unemployed, among whom 17 per cent. are unregistered.
	Among the groups in society where registration rates are below average, lower turnout rates have also been recorded. Younger voters—those aged 24 and under—are almost half as likely to vote as the population as a whole.

Gordon Prentice: There is a legal duty to return the electoral registration form. Over the past five years, how many people have been fined for not doing so?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that I will make on a later group of amendments. I believe that the answer is none or a negligible number.

Chris Ruane: On postal ballot fraud, can the hon. Gentleman give the figures for the number of successful prosecutions at parliamentary or local government elections over the past two or three years?

Jonathan Djanogly: I cannot, but I would be interested to hear those figures from the Minister.

Chris Ruane: rose—

Jonathan Djanogly: No, I shall make headway.
	Longer-term analysis by the Electoral Commission suggests that there is a disfranchised generation that, as it gets older, will not turn out in greater numbers. We hear little as to what the Government propose to do about that. Increasing political awareness and interest must surely be at the heart of any attempt to increase turnout. If that issue is not tackled in conjunction with the Bill, increasing duties on electoral registration officers will, we agree, have little effect.
	The commission raised particular concerns about the existing registration system, under which the head of household is much more likely to be registered than other eligible people in the home. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will deal with that point later. We believe that individual registration is very much tied in with amendment No.   14, which is why I have taken some time to put the two together.
	Clause 9, which will insert proposed new section 9A in the Representation of the People Act 1983, sets out a non-exhaustive list of the minimum steps that must be taken by the electoral registration officers to identify persons eligible for registration as electors—for example, making repeat house-to-house inquiries in connection with the annual canvass.
	We support that clause and believe that there should be clear duties on registration officers to promote accurate registration. Nevertheless, the clause could go further in   promoting not only registration, but an accurate register. We must recognise that over-registration and under-registration are both problems that need addressing.
	We must all be clear about the fact that an accurate register that results in fewer people being registered is preferable, from our point of view, to a bloated, inaccurate register. If the registration system is secure and accurate, the risks further downstream in the electoral process are significantly reduced.

Alan Beith: There is a fundamental difficulty with that. If someone's name is   inappropriately on the electoral register and he votes, he may commit an offence, but if someone's name is not on the electoral register, he has no recourse and is precluded from voting by the absence of his name.

Jonathan Djanogly: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point—I agree—but our position is that the integrity of the register in itself must be the priority. If there is no integrity within the electoral register, people's confidence in the system will only decline over time.

John Pugh: Obviously, the rules can encourage under-registration or over-registration. Has the hon. Gentleman sized those two different problems? What is the percentage of over-registration compared with the percentage of under-registration for any one given register?

Jonathan Djanogly: I do not have those figures, but I would be delighted to hear them from the Minister.

Chris Ruane: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that the figures for under-registration are in the public domain and were produced by the Electoral Commission in   September? The figure is between 3.5 million and 4 million people. If single signature or unique identifiers go ahead, there could be a further 10 per cent. drop—another 4 million. We might have 8 million people off the register as a result.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman has been dying to give that statistic, and he has now given it.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that one can have under-registration and over-registration at the same time, because some people, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and   Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) suggested, might be registered more than once without such an entitlement? The Government were happy to introduce a Northern Ireland electoral fraud Bill that was designed to prevent the phenomenon of some constituencies having more people registered than there were electors.

Jonathan Djanogly: I agree with my hon. Friend: there can be over and under-representation on the same register, but the priority is to ensure that the register is as accurate as possible. That is the starting block of our democracy.
	The amendment would ensure that registration officers had a clear duty to remove individuals from an electoral register who should not be on it. People who are no longer resident should be removed from the register, particularly in urban areas with a high population turnover. Keeping electors on the electoral roll who are no longer resident opens the door to election fraud. The amendment is designed to tackle the current problem of over-registration by creating this new duty for electoral registration officers to remove individuals from the register who are no longer eligible to be on it .

Andrew Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for getting on to the terms of amendment No. 14. I understand that, under the 2000 legislation, electors are removed from the register and safeguards are in place, especially where no electoral registration form is returned. What additional over-registration is the hon. Gentleman trying to reach with this amendment?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman will find that the situation varies dramatically from place to place. Best practice across the various electoral districts is a serious issue. The point of the amendment is that electoral registration officers should have a duty under the Bill in relation to those who should not be on the register, as well as in relation to those who should be on it. The wording of the amendment is no less important, if not more important, that that in the Bill.

Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend explain to the Committee how this amendment, which I broadly support, would work in the case of someone sentenced to imprisonment? Would that not impose a duty on registration officers to remove such an individual's name from the register for the period of his incarceration?

Jonathan Djanogly: Yes, that would be correct. That is the law and electoral registration officers should be checking up on that.

Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: No, I will make some progress.
	We acknowledge that the Secretary of State is given powers to add to the list contained in clause 9 but believe that the Bill should go further and that EROs should have an obligation under the clause to ensure that proactive steps are taken towards an accurate register, which would include removing individuals from the register who are no longer eligible to be on it.
	We also acknowledge that clause 61 provides for the Electoral Commission to set performance standards for electoral administrators and that it envisages that the commission will set further standards for EROs to complement the minimum ones set out in clause 9, but is that not just another example of a clause that talks the talk but does not quite walk the walk, of which we will see a lot during consideration of the Bill? Why should we not clearly set out those further standards and all the   duties and expectations of EROs in this clause? Obviously, we accept that some flexibility to add or modify the duties is desirable. Why not be a little bolder and set clear duties on the EROs? They would work more effectively if they knew their role and if their responsibilities were clearly defined.
	I acknowledge the excellent work done by registration officers and other electoral staff and administrators. We must realise that increased burdens require increased training and possibly increased staffing levels. Has the Minister done any impact assessment of the additional costs that could be involved and how exactly they will be funded? It must be said that the Government's record in introducing new duties for local government and then providing inadequate resources is renowned. There are many instances of local authorities having to subsidise new duties because of insufficient Government funding. These are the issues that need to be addressed if the Bill is going to work.
	The increased level of under-registration has also been of concern to all those involved in elections, but it is a distinct issue. In their report "Understanding electoral registration: the extent and nature of non-registration in Britain" of September 2005, the Electoral Commission estimated that 3.7 million people across England and Wales who are eligible to vote are not registered to do so. That means that approximately 8 per cent of those eligible to vote are not registered. I shall discuss that in more detail later.
	Under the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, there is an obligation on the head of the household to return the registration forms. Clearly, that is not being done and the fine that can be imposed is simply not being put into effect. Making individuals more accountable could be better achieved under a system of individual registration, where a duty to register would be easier to enforce and the obligations imposed by the amendment would be more easily enforced as well.
	It is widely recognised that non-registration is not spread evenly across the population but is worse in certain areas and among certain sections of the population. That point demonstrates that individual registration will not necessarily increase voter turnout. Non-registration should be combated by targeting those parts of the population where it is particularly prevalent. If that is done in conjunction with the introduction of individual registration, we will be taking effective steps towards combating both over and under-registration.
	We generally agree with the principle of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and with the idea that there should be duties on electoral registration officers both to keep an accurate register and to promote electoral registration. On a cautionary note, increasing political awareness and interest surely must be at the heart of any attempt to increase turnout. If the issue is not tackled in conjunction with the Bill, increasing duties on electoral registration officers may have little effect.
	On the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats, we welcome any amendments that have the potential to deliver better access to electoral registration and voting for disabled people. However, I wonder whether the reference to the Disability Discrimination Act 2001 is correct and whether it should be 1995 or 2005.

David Heath: 2005.

Jonathan Djanogly: I thank the hon. Gentleman. We support the intention of the amendment and would appreciate it if the Minister looked further into the matters facing those with disabilities. The Bill should ensure that the voting process is accessible, from registration to the casting of the ballots, to all those with disabilities. We should certainly do all we can to ensure that the Bill complies with the disability equality duty contained in section 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe tabled amendments Nos. 28 and 29, and we support the general intention behind them, particularly in relation to how   they could facilitate the better implementation of individual registration. On individual registration, we recognise that some form of roll-over measures may be needed, based on the experience of Northern Ireland. We concur with the views put to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Committee that we should move swiftly to individual registration with vigorous data swapping between electoral registration officers and utilities, the Post Office, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and others.
	Amendment No. 28 places a welcome duty on registration officers to use the records and resources available to them to ensure an accurate register. As I   have said, we believe that that should be the foundation of the electoral process. We also believe, however, that access to information should not be unfettered. While we support the intention of the amendment, it might be better to specify the type of information available for data sharing in this primary legislation. It may also be necessary to consider safeguards beyond the Data Protection Act 1998 to prevent unfettered access and possible abuse of information. I should be interested to hear the Minister's views.
	We have similar worries about amendment No. 29. Effective and unencumbered data sharing would clearly make for an accurate register, but adequate safeguards would again be necessary. We support the use of data matching against other public registers to enable potentially eligible electors who are not yet registered to   be identified and targeted more effectively. The implications of sharing information between local authorities, Departments and other agencies require detailed consideration by the expert agencies.

Clive Betts: I was interested by the Opposition's approach. I was more heartened at the end of the speech by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) than I was at the beginning, once he had made it clear that he broadly supported measures aimed at improving the level of electoral registration. The wording of amendment No.   14 suggests that the Opposition's remit is to get people off the register rather than on to it. That was the major problem that I, along with many other Members, raised on Second Reading.
	Currently, electoral registration is not fair. It is biased, and discriminates against people in inner-city areas, people in housing with multiple occupation, people who are young, people who are black and people from the Asian community. We must therefore find a better system to achieve fairer registration that more accurately reflects people's entitlement to register. I accept that people who have no entitlement should not be on the register—that goes without saying—but we must address this major problem as well.
	I have a view on the moves we should be making and the long-term objective of completely revised electoral registration, and my amendments conform with that view. The annual canvass with a bit of information coming from one or two databases—such as council tax information—is a pretty inefficient way of compiling an electoral register. Over two or three months, a great deal of effort is put into going around and offering people the   opportunity to provide information that is already available to electoral registration officers because the form was filled in a year earlier and nothing much has changed.
	The joint report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Committee drew on evidence that we had seen in Australia, where electoral registration information is obtained from various databases and used to follow up   individuals whose circumstances have changed. By doing that, rather than conducting an annual canvass of everyone, the authorities managed to produce a register which they told us they considered to be 98 per cent. accurate.

Chris Ruane: Yesterday I spoke to Sam Younger, head of the Electoral Commission. He shares my hon. Friend's view that filling in a form every year is not necessary, believing that once per parliamentary term or once every four years would be acceptable. Would my hon. Friend support that?

Clive Betts: Yes, I would be content to move in that general direction. I also feel that the whole House should thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he has done, and for gathering information and statistics about the extent of under-registration.
	If we adopted a system under which data from a variety of organisations provided the basis on which electoral registration was carried out, we could, if we wished, also conduct an audit check by means of a canvass, say every three years. Electoral registration officers could then use their resources more effectively and spread out the check over a period, rather than trying to target everyone, irrespective of whether their circumstances had changed, within three months. That   is very inefficient. I am seeking, through my amendments, to strengthen the current arrangements with a view to moving gradually towards the situation that I have just outlined.
	One issue that emerged strongly during our Select Committee's deliberations was electoral registration officers' concern about whether they have the right—let alone a responsibility—to encourage people to get their name on the register. Their worry was that they might at some stage face a legal challenge, and might be getting into the political arena. Amendment No. 30 seeks to make it absolutely clear that we are not merely encouraging but requiring them
	"to maximise the number of those entitled to register who do so."
	That would remove any doubt, making it clear that EROs will not face a legal challenge in encouraging people to register. When we consider later clauses, I   shall make it clear that I want a duty to be imposed on EROs to produce for the Electoral Commission an annual report on the extent to which they have achieved that objective. Indeed, I want the requirement to maximise registration to be imposed on the commission, as well. The commission does a lot of good in giving advice, but it would be worth while imposing on it the duty positively to achieve that objective.

Chris Ruane: That excellent suggestion has my full support. However, local EROs should produce such reports not only for the commission but for their local electorates, to let them know how they are performing. That should be done on a national scale, and should perhaps involve a league table.

Clive Betts: Perhaps, and if this House does not require that a league table be drawn up, someone doubtless soon will; perhaps my hon. Friend will have another job to do in that regard. Local council committees can scrutinise such reports annually, and it might not be a bad idea for the commission—should it be given this responsibility—to produce an annual report for Parliament, so that we can scrutinise how well it has performed overall.
	On safeguards and scrutiny, our Select Committee hearing examined the idea of using a variety of databases. In general, data protection experts had no problem with that, so long as it is made clear that the information collected can be used for this purpose.
	I am certainly prepared to listen to what my colleagues on the Government Front Bench have to say. The wording of my amendment may not be perfect, but I hope that they at least accept the thrust of the idea that we should make it clear that EROs have the right to   access not merely information held by a council—it is clear that they already access council tax and benefits information, for example—but wider information. Let us consider a classic case. Local authorities used to have housing departments, whose information could be used by EROs. Housing departments as we traditionally understand them no longer exist, because stock transfers have taken place or arm's length management organisations have been created, as in the case of my Sheffield authority. It is not clear whether EROs have the right to seek information outside the council from arm's length, or completely separate and independent, bodies. It would clearly be wrong if the information historically used by EROs were suddenly removed as the result of a housing stock transfer.

Chris Ruane: I have in my hand responses from EROs throughout the country, and it may surprise my hon. Friend to learn that not all take advantage of their current ability to consult local government databases, so a duty needs to be imposed on them to pursue such information. Many of them have said that they would welcome access to central Government databases, in order to improve their registers.

Clive Betts: The point that my hon. Friend makes is   absolutely right. In Australia, for example, driving licence information is used, along with information from private companies, utilities and organisations in the public domain such as the post office. All those bodies have information about people changing their addresses. That is the fundamental basis on which electoral registration officers work, to ensure that the registers are as accurate as possible.
	The amendments are not intended to be too prescriptive about precisely which information should be used; I am merely saying that we should broaden it beyond the information available to councils. I want to make it clear that registration officers should have the ability to use information from such individuals and organisations as the Secretary of State designates for that purpose.
	My amendment No. 29 attempts to turn the position round by saying that it is not merely for electoral registration officers to have to seek the information; rather, certain organisations that have information about people's change of address—institutions such as universities, for example, which have information about individuals becoming 18 or moving to a particular area—should be required to notify the ERO. In the past, the two universities in Sheffield have adopted different approaches to supplying information about halls of residence. It is wrong if one set of students is more likely to be on the register than another, simply because of a particular decision of an individual officer within a   university.
	My amendments incorporate the various issues that I   have mentioned. My Front-Bench colleagues may point to deficiencies in the wording, but I believe that there is a great deal of support for what the amendments are intended to achieve. We need to recognise that we have a serious problem of under-registration and that much data within councils, other public bodies, utilities and the private sector are readily available—all of which would make EROs' job much better and lead to a more accurate register. Many people not currently on the register could be on it in the future. I hope that Ministers are minded to accept, if not the precise wording, the intention behind the amendments.

David Heath: I rise to speak to the group of amendments and, in particular, to the amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends. I shall deal with the generality of the group of amendments first.
	I am concerned that the Committee seems already to be getting into an either/or position: either we have to   prioritise the integrity of the registration process and the ballot, or we have to maximise the number of people available. I have to say—not just because I am a Liberal—that there is a Goldilocks solution here. We do not want under-registration or over-registration; we want it to be just right. What we need, therefore, are provisions to maximise the integrity of the registration process, while at the same time ensuring that as many people as are eligible to vote are actually on the register and able to vote. I made that point on Second Reading.

Andrew Love: That is not a controversial statement, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we introduce too many security measures, it may well have an adverse impact on the number of people prepared to climb the hurdles in order to register to vote?

David Heath: I do, actually. If the hon. Gentleman listened to what I said on Second Reading, he would know that I disagreed with Conservative proposals relating to national insurance numbers. Not everyone in the country knows that number instantly, so it could prove an obstacle to registration, but that does not rule out the possibility of using other identifiers with which people are more familiar, particularly if they are more easily accessed. That could help to maintain confidence in the system.
	I listened to what the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said about amendment No. 14. I am afraid that it has changed the context in which we read the Bill. It is absolutely right that electoral registration officers should
	"take all necessary steps to remove individuals from the electoral register who are no longer eligible".
	Of course that should be a duty. However, making that the first duty, even before there is a duty to create the register, is not sensible. The first duty should not be to remove people from a register that is not yet created. The amendment certainly overstates the case a little.

Oliver Heald: That is not what the amendment says.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman says that that is not what the amendment says, but it is. The clause deals with the duty of registration officers to take necessary steps. The amendment suggests at the end of line 15 that the first duty should be "to remove individuals".

Oliver Heald: It would be all right further down.

David Heath: It would be all right further down. That would be the right place, as it would suggest that the register's integrity was an important factor, but not one that outweighed any other consideration.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) was right, when speaking to his amendment No. 30, to stress the need to maximise the number of people entitled to register. I hope that the Bill contains a clear expression of that intention. I understand the objectives of his other amendments, and I admit that I am being pedantic, but the proposal in amendment No. 28 to give EROs not just a power but a duty to inspect
	"any records held by any person or organisation as designated by the Secretary of State"
	might involve them in rather more work than they had anticipated. We need access to any record, and EROs, as part of their duty to maximise the number of people on the register, should use the information available in a   sensible way. Although the amendment is not worded quite right, my criticism is minor and I do not want to take anything away from the hon. Gentleman's intention.
	My difficulty with amendment No. 29 is similar. I   think that organisations should have a duty to provide information on request, but bureaucratic meltdown might result if the duty were to provide any bit of information that might ever be of value to an ERO whenever a database somewhere in the country was changed. I think that the job that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe wants done would be achieved by inserting into the Bill a duty to provide information on request and by giving EROs the power of inspection, provided that that was in the context of an overall and overriding duty to maximise the numbers of people on the register who are entitled to vote, and to remove those who are not so entitled.

John Pugh: When we collect data, does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that things do not happen that we do not want to happen? For example, the names of people registered anonymously will not appear on the published register. If they move house, or if the details of their driving licences change, must not EROs be obliged to check out the facts, for reasons of personal security, before a name appears on the electoral register that should not appear there?

David Heath: My hon. Friend is right. Multiple entries sometimes appear on the register that one would expect the ERO to notice. I have great respect for the EROs in my constituency, but my opponent in the general election did not register as a voter in my constituency until three months before the election. When he did, he appeared on the register at three different addresses in the same village. That surprised me a little.

Brian Binley: I am especially concerned about how databases are gathered. My business is the creation of databases, and I can tell the House that most of them are almost useless. Accurate information is vital to the election process, so I want to offer a word of warning that EROs should be wary about how it is collected.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point—although I must say that my business is being a Member of Parliament. He is right to say that a lot of databases are corrupted and that when one puts rubbish into a database one gets rubbish out. The register is too important to have rubbish put into it, and I accept the point that he makes.
	We have to get through many groups of amendments in the next couple of hours, so I shall not speak at length. I shall briefly introduce amendment No. 1, which I   tabled. As the hon. Member for Huntingdon said, it has a typographical error and should read "2005", not "2001". I think that that is what the original text said. All I seek from the Minister is clear guidance for registration officers that it is important to look after people with disabilities in the registration process as well as in the voting process. We are getting it right more and more in the voting process, but I am less convinced about the registration process.
	Communication with people with disabilities needs to be appropriate, and that is not always the case. Canvass officers need the appropriate skills to communicate with people with disabilities and registration officers may need to use means of communication that are not the obvious ones. Instead of advertisements in newspapers, they might need to be placed in specialised forms of media that will reach those who would otherwise not be reached. The whole question of household registration as opposed to individual registration also needs to be considered. If one or two people in a house have disabilities, they may need specific and separate treatment to enable them to register correctly.
	The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 will—I   think—impose a duty on registration officers as of December 2006, and that general duty may cover all the issues that I have mentioned. However, this is an opportunity to be explicit before that date and ensure that a sector of the community is not effectively disbarred from taking part in the democratic process. That is the purpose of my amendment. I do not intend to press it to a Division, but I hope that the Minister will respond positively to it.

Gordon Prentice: I agreed with the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) when he said that this should not be an either/or argument between maintaining the integrity of the electoral register and making it as comprehensive as possible. I also agreed with my Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) when he reminded us of the situation in Australia, where they have compulsory voting. As he told us, 98 per cent. of the population there is on the electoral register, so we should examine the Australian experience carefully. I would not adopt compulsory voting: instead, I would reward people for joining the electoral register. That may sound a little eccentric or zany, but we could tweak income tax codes or enhance benefits and reward people for participating in elections, which is of course a civic duty.
	I agree with amendment No. 14 that registration officers should be under a duty to remove names from the electoral register. At the last election, my Liberal Democrat opponent, Shazad Anwar, circulated leaflets saying that he lived at 34 Kibble Grove, Brierfield, with his wife, Raisa. When we looked at the register it showed that he also lived with his brother and two sisters, who also appeared on the electoral register in Burnley. We went back a further year and those same relatives appeared on both the Pendle and the Burnley registers for that year. We took the matter up with the police, who told us that they had been in touch with the town hall in neighbouring Burnley and it was the practice that if electoral registration forms for an address were not returned, the names were rolled forward on the register for 12 months. I have the letter from the police in front of me. That practice is not good enough, because if people think that the integrity of the electoral register is corrupted in some way, they will soon stop accepting the results of elections, especially close ones. These are important issues.
	I want more registration. Currently, there is huge under-registration, but we must do everything we can to maintain the integrity of the electoral register. On that I   agree with Opposition Front-Bench Members.

John Horam: I support my   hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr.   Djanogly) in his amendment. I also agree with the   hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that we need to increase registration, as there is undoubtedly under-registration. I thoroughly agree with the intention of his amendments even though, as he admitted, they may be not quite technically accurate enough for acceptance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon is right to try to get the balance right, whether it be at subsection (1) or subsection (5). There should be a balance between an increase in registration and getting the register right. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and other Members pointed out that there is far more under-registration than wrongful registration. That is a valid point, but our view is that it is also a question of confidence in the security of the electoral system—the   point made by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr.   Prentice)—and individual results may be influenced in local authority elections, for example. In such cases, there would certainly be scandal or invidious press comment and the whole process would become a shambles. I am sure that the Government do not want that any more than Members do. It is not a quantitative question, but one of confidence, and my hon. Friend's amendment addresses that squarely. If we can find that balanced approach, I am sure that the House can reach consensus on the issue.
	Secondly, I want to raise a point that was brought to   the attention of the House and the Minister by Dame   Marion Roe, who was formerly the Member of   Parliament for Broxbourne, and who is happily not   entirely disengaged from politics as she is one of my   constituents. She pointed out that probably many   foreign nationals on the register are not Commonwealth, European Union or Irish citizens and are certainly not British citizens. They may be immigrants whose cases are in a pending tray at the Home Office and who are not properly yet entitled to be on the register. Somehow they get on to the register, not necessarily with fraudulent intent—they may simply have filled in a form that was thrust through their letterbox because they thought that they should. They may not have completed the form accurately because they do not understand the language. They may have filled it in because they thought that if they were not on the register they would not be able to claim benefits or have access to a parking scheme. They may be Turkish, Kosovan or some other nationality and they are not allowed to vote.
	It is certainly the case, as the Minister may point out, that the recent change in the application form to require that people include their nationality should significantly deal with the issue. I think that requirement is on all the most recent application forms. That is good but it will not satisfactorily deal with the problem.

Andrew Love: May I raise with the hon. Gentleman a concern expressed to me at the general election? I have several Greek constituents who are British citizens. When they filled out the section on nationality, they said, naturally enough, that they were Greek. As a result, they were not allowed to vote at the general election, even though they took their passports to show that they were British citizens. Because they had inadvertently filled out their nationality wrongly they could not vote at the general election.

John Horam: Unfortunately, that shows that there is a   downside to every improvement we try to make. On the whole, the inclusion of nationality on the form is reckoned to be a good thing and I support it. If there is   a downside, it underlines the point I was making: it is not enough simply to register one's nationality; we must give EROs the right, and the duty if possible, to check it out. We need a checking process as well as a registering process. That is the way to deal with what is undoubtedly a problem.
	I do not know how big the problem is. Perhaps the Minister knows.

Chris Ruane: rose—

John Horam: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has looked into the problem in detail, so he may know. I invite him to intervene.

Chris Ruane: I have not got the exact information, but I will get back to the hon. Gentleman. Is not the greatest injustice that 37 per cent. of the black and ethnic population of this country are not on the register? He makes a point about keeping this or that nationality off the register, but if people must state their nationality, date of birth and national insurance number and if they must sign personally, each of those steps will take the 4 million unregistered people up to 8 million.

John Horam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point   about the mathematical facts. Undoubtedly, under-registration is a bigger issue numerically than wrongful or fraudulent registration—he makes that point very well—but confidence is also an issue. Amendment No. 14 rightly points to the fact that the public's attitude is an issue in how an election may be decided in certain circumstances. The Government should take this issue seriously. They should consider those foreign nationals who may be on the register unwittingly, not intentionally or fraudulently, and therefore give electoral registration officers the right and   duty to investigate such matters, and encourage them to do so. That is the way forward.

Andrew Love: I rise primarily to endorse the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), but before I do so I shall briefly comment on amendment No. 14 in the context of the way that it was moved: it was suggested that its rationale was that ensuring the register's security and accuracy should be given priority above all other considerations. Other hon. Members have spoken about the need for balance. I want to go further by saying quite clearly that what we have in this country is a crisis of under-registration. Over-registration may or may not exist—there are one or two constituencies where more than 100 per cent. of the estimated local electorate appear on the electoral register—and although I recognise that a balance and proper security measures are needed, we need to address the significant problem of under-registration.
	The fact that somewhere between 3.5 million to 4   million people—about 9 to 10 per cent. of the population—are missing nationally from the registers has been mentioned already. In parts of the capital, particularly in inner London, the figure rises to somewhere in the region of 20 per cent. of the population. Although I accept some of the previous suggestions that perhaps we do not need an annual rolling register, there are certain parts of the country where it may well be necessary to keep such a register to achieve accuracy, and London is an example.

Andrew MacKinlay: Has my hon. Friend taken cognisance of the fact that, particularly in London, a growing number of people have two homes? We should encourage them to be registered at both homes, especially as they have a legitimate interest in municipal government, but many of them will be exercised by the fact they could be twice required to serve on a jury in two jurisdictions. I wonder whether he and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will consider allowing such people to opt for jury service in one of the areas where they have a home, rather than in both. Such a double requirement serves as a disincentive for people to register in London.

Andrew Love: I note the point that my hon. Friend makes; the Minister may wish to respond to it later.
	I shall take my constituency as an example of the consequences of under-registration. About 10,000 people who live in my constituency are not registered. As a result, we had to go through in a boundary redistribution, as did every constituency in the country. Although my area has the same number of seats—in fact, the changes made locally are relatively minor—a significant number of seats disappeared nationally. That leads to the conclusion that the number of people not registered significantly contributes to the reduction in representation in different parts of the country.

John Pugh: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that such things as Government grant are based on the number of people whom the Government believe to be living in a place. The most deprived areas thus suffer from inaccuracies in the electoral register because although many people live there and are in need, there is a shortfall of people on the register.

Andrew Love: Interestingly enough, we have no representative from the London borough of Westminster. Such a point about the borough's estimated population was raised at the time of the census. The situation causes real problems. The under-registration in my constituency means that we often do not get the central support that we would perhaps receive if everyone were on the register.
	That situation is the backdrop to any consideration of the amendments. Of course, clause 9 is at the heart of what the Bill is trying to achieve. Everyone would agree with the proposal in amendment No. 14 that electoral registration officers should be aware that people who are ineligible to remain on the register should be removed from it. We should remind electoral officers of that, but it is not the primary focus of what the clause should achieve.

Adam Afriyie: We are in a bit of danger of confusing two issues. Registration officers have a duty to facilitate registration, but encouraging registration is a completely separate issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such encouragement is perhaps a political activity, rather than a registration activity?

Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman will find that other measures give electoral registration officers the powers and resources with which they can try to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of their right to register for, and participate in, elections. A line must be drawn when an attempt to encourage people to register and participate shaves into political considerations. However, the Bill does a good job by drawing the line in the right place.
	I did not want to comment on amendment No. 14 in any great detail. I hope that the Minister will treat it in the way in which the Opposition intended. We should remind electoral registration officers of their duty to ensure that they maintain an accurate register and I   hope that that duty will be encapsulated in the final version of clause 9. However, that duty is not the essence of what the clause is about.
	The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe go to the heart of the   concerns that many hon. Members have expressed. Clause 9 simply requires registration officers to maintain the register. We must, of course, ensure that the register is accurate and that people who wish to be placed on it may do so, but a greater sense of urgency and priority is   needed, so we should encourage officers to maximise the numbers on the register, which would be the effect of   amendment No. 30. Although the wording of that amendment might not be acceptable to the Minister, I   hope that she will take on board the spirit in which it was tabled and the support that I suspect it would receive among hon. Members.
	I am pleased that amendments Nos. 28 and 29 have been tabled because the question of data sharing goes to the heart of what we can do to try to maximise the number of people on the register. I have talked to my electoral registration officer at great length about what can be achieved by knocking on doors and sending letters. It is extremely difficult to boost the number of   people on the register by using simply those mechanisms. We need information from data sources so that we can target the people who are not on the register more effectively. I accept that there might be data protection problems with that. Additionally, we should not set up a mechanism that would overload electoral registration officers because they can do only a certain amount of work with the limited resources available to them.

Chris Ruane: Research from the Electoral Commission shows that many of the 3.5 million to 4 million people who are not on the register are unemployed, so does my hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea to use the central Government's unemployment register? Many such people are poorly paid, so should we use tax credit registers, such as that for child tax credit? Many such people live in social housing, so would it be a good idea to use housing records on public, social and private sector housing, especially those for houses in multiple occupation and caravan parks?

Andrew Love: I would endorse all those sources, but we could use other data sources, such as the comprehensive records of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea. Indeed, the judicious use of a mix of other local and national sources should make it possible not to overload electoral registration departments with too much work. That would be one of several mechanisms through which we could ensure that we were targeting people who were not on the register.

Andrew Turner: Problems would be likely to arise when drawing on data from other sources when individuals wished to protect their anonymity. The Bill makes sensible provision for anonymous registration in certain circumstances. How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that data from the register on child tax credit should be deployed? Should people's names simply go on to the electoral register, or should an approach be made not only to ensure that such people exist, but to determine whether they wish to have their names recorded in public or private?

Andrew Love: Any information that goes alongside the name and address of a person claiming child tax credit should of course remain confidential and none of it should be shared with anyone. Before any such changes took place, we would need to ensure that people who put themselves on any of the registers about which we are talking were aware that basic information about their names and addresses could well be used for electoral registration purposes. It goes without saying that we would need to consult the data registrar to ensure that we were not falling foul of any of the many provisions that exist to protect an individual's anonymity. I would certainly not want this or any other Bill to tamper with such necessary protections. However, given all the different data sources that we have, surely we can find appropriate sources through which we would not fall foul of such provisions and that would give electoral registration officers the targeted information that they need.

Clive Betts: I accept my hon. Friend's point about the need to get the right data sources. He mentioned resources. I am partly arguing that resources could be switched in the longer term from canvassing people whose circumstances have not changed, to getting more useful information from other data sources. In the meantime, does he accept that we might have to spend more money on our electoral registration process and perhaps even think about giving local authorities a specific grant in recognition of the fact that we are creating electoral registers throughout the country that will eventually be used for national purposes?

Andrew Love: Yes, I accept that point. I am pleased that my hon. Friend raises that matter at such an appropriate time.
	The Government have made an announcement on the money that will accompany the implementation of the   Bill, which is welcome. I ask for two things regarding the resources that will be made available. First, when the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament there should be a recalculation so that the   resources provided are adequate to ensure the implementation of powers to improve registration. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, those resources should be ring-fenced. Advertising resources will be ring-fenced to enable electoral registration officers to persuade people to go on to the register. However, all the resources for electoral registration purposes should be ring-fenced because there are great worries among local authorities that additional resources may, as happens on many other occasions, filter out of electoral registration into other local government services. However, we want to ensure that the resources dedicated to the Bill are spent on electoral registration.

Chris Ruane: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department does not know how much is spent by each electoral registration office, so if additional money is provided we do not have a baseline for judging how much has been given? We need to collect and collate information on how much each office spends per elector so that we can monitor the situation.

Andrew Love: My hon. Friend is right that there has been a great lack of transparency in this area. I hope that by giving powers to the Electoral Commission the Bill will succeed in providing transparency, so that figures are available both locally and nationally and we can ensure that registration and the provision of resources are satisfactory.
	As I said at the beginning of my speech, we commend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, which encapsulate the targets and priorities that Government Members and, indeed, many Opposition Members support. I do not have any difficulty with the other two amendments in the group, and I am sure that with some good will we can achieve a balance so that we can protect the register and ensure that it is accurate, while at the same time we can reach the largest possible number of people missing from the register and put them where they deserve to be—on the register and able to vote in local and national elections.

Peter Robinson: I do not intend to speak at length on this group of amendments. However, clause 70 does not apply to Northern Ireland. The Electoral Commission says that the Government intend to introduce legislation for Northern Ireland to   deal with some of the problems that that entails, but   it is essential that that legislation reproduce the propositions in clause 9. I wholeheartedly endorse the   standards that the Government are attempting to apply to electoral officers in clause 9. If that standard had been included in legislation affecting Northern Ireland in the past few years, when electoral law was tested on us before it was tested on the rest of the nation, the number of people falling off the register would have been very different.
	Will the Government confirm that clause 9 will be replicated in the Northern Ireland legislation that is to follow? Can they tell us whether that legislation will be introduced soon, because it would be wrong to head into a general election without all parts of the United Kingdom having the same standards of registration? Hon. Members have referred to the Northern Ireland experience, and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr.   Love) is right to say that the issues that impact on GB are not entirely the same as the issues that impact on Northern Ireland. He said that there is a crisis of under-registration in Great Britain, but in Northern Ireland there was a crisis of over-registration.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman said that there is not a crisis of under-registration in Northern Ireland. When the changes were implemented there, registration went down to 86 per cent. Some of that reduction was about getting rid of guff on the register, but registration has since climbed to only 91 per cent., so 9 to 10 per cent. of the Northern Irish electorate are disfranchised because they are not on the register. Is that not a crisis?

Peter Robinson: No. The hon. Gentleman's case rests on an assumption. It was well documented that many people had registered themselves at a number of address throughout Northern Ireland, and there were also people on the electoral register who had died many years before but still managed to come out to vote. There are some dangers in not coming out in person to vote, but the dead could still do so by post. Those issues, however, can be dealt with by other legislative changes. Many of the people who were removed from the register should not have been on it in the first place.
	I accept that the greater the number of personal identifiers included on the registration form, the more difficult and off-putting it is to fill in the form. I do not think that anyone can provide any precise statistics about the impact of such a measure, but in Northern Ireland people were not put off registering because they were asked to give their signature and date of birth. They were not even put off by being asked to include their national insurance number. I accept the Conservative argument that the national insurance number offers an advantage in cutting out fraud. There were two linked problems in Northern Ireland. The requirement for individual registration, rather than registration by the head of the household, reduced the numbers on the register considerably. The decision was right, but the requirement to register annually was problematic. If it is difficult to comply with all the additional registration requirements, it becomes increasingly frustrating to do so every year.
	All the political parties in Northern Ireland supported the Government's decision to change the requirement for annual registration, as has been said. Annual registration may not be necessary if we tie down the requirements for personal identifiers. We will deal with many of those issues later in Committee, so I simply wish to secure an assurance from the Government that everything in the clause, which I fully support and which they are right to introduce, will be included in the Northern Ireland legislation.
	There is no inconsistency between the clause and the Conservative amendment. It is entirely legitimate to attempt to comply with the two main requirements of   the legislation. We should attempt both to increase participation in the democratic process by ensuring that as many people as possible are registered and to remove people who are fraudulently registered.
	One may quibble about whether or not it is their first duty, but it is the electoral officer's duty to make sure the register is as accurate as possible. If the provisions in clause 9 had applied to Northern Ireland, the fall in   registration would not have occurred. Such provisions, combined with an end to annual registration, could lead to a marked change in Northern Ireland.

Barbara Keeley: I want to make a couple of brief comments on matters to which other hon. Members have not referred.
	On over-registration and under-registration, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) has referred to Westminster city council. I think that connecting the electoral register to other local government functions creates a problem. Westminster city council not only has a problem with people with two homes, but links residents' parking permits with the electoral register. The difficulty is that if someone with a parking permit moves on, it is definitely not in their interests to tell Westminster city council about the change of address, if they want to keep the permit.
	Linking other functions to registration also creates under-registration. When electoral registration was connected to the payment of the poll tax, we saw the first catastrophic drop in registration. Those of us who campaign in elections know that it is common to visit a house in which a couple, or perhaps a family, live, but only the woman of the household is registered, which possibly allows people to claim a council tax discount by   having only one adult in the household. It is interesting that Electoral Commission research shows that 8 per cent. of men are not registered, compared with 6 per cent. of women. If we want to improve the integrity of registers, which is an objective for all parties, we should make it clear that local government should start to split functions and not link items such as residents' parking permits with the electoral register, which causes problems.
	I disagree with the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam   Afriyie) that encouraging registration is somehow a political activity. Encouraging participation and registration is a proper function of councils, and we must get over the idea, which some local government officers have, that it is not.

Adam Afriyie: If registration officers can pull in other   data sources and have a duty to encourage participation, I am concerned that they will choose a data source that matches the profile of a particular political party, because modern campaigning techniques give parties a clear profile of who votes for them.

Barbara Keeley: I do not believe that that is an issue, because we are not into that territory, yet.
	Last week, the Constitutional Affairs Committee held an evidence session with the Electoral Commission. Conservative Members have discussed either creating barriers to registration or encouraging participation, and the Electoral Commission is now inclined to discuss the situation in terms of a spectrum from creating barriers to registration to encouraging participation. It does not see one function as superseding the other; it   sees the situation as a spectrum, and we should accept the existence of that spectrum. If we want to encourage participation and to get the maximum number of people   registered—people cannot participate if they are not registered—we must focus on the barriers.
	Some of the ideas that we have discussed would create   barriers to registration. When the Electoral Commission conducted its research, it asked people why they did not register. Those people said that registration is "old-fashioned", "time-consuming" and "a chore". In some parts of the country and among some age groups and ethnic minorities, there are already people who do not register, because they think it "a time-consuming chore". We must be cognisant of that point, because everything that we add to the process makes it more of a chore and more time consuming. I cannot agree to proposals such as adding national insurance numbers to   registration.
	On electoral registration officers seeing it as their job to encourage registration and participation, it is key that the process is not understood: people assume that the council automatically registers people; they do not understand the process; they think that they are already registered; or they do not see the benefits. Encouraging registration is clearly an educational task and is in no shape or form a political activity.

Harriet Harman: We have had a wide discussion on the amendment. I shall begin by discussing the spirit of the Bill and how its objectives will be implemented.
	The Government, working with electoral registration officers at a local level, are responsible for achieving three things, in the light of which we have considered all the amendments. Everybody who is entitled to vote should be registered to vote, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have acknowledged that universal suffrage is the basis of the franchise. We are not discussing numbers or an abstract register—we are   discussing an individual's right to vote.
	We should be concerned about every individual who does not have the right to vote, because they are not on the electoral register. In discussing his amendment, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) failed to give that point sufficient importance, because all other hon. Members who have spoken acknowledged it. He argued that the importance of ensuring that there is no fraud must be the priority and that everything else can be overlooked. We must have full registration and high levels of participation, and we must tackle fraud. Those are our three objectives, none of which is optional.
	Some hon. Members have mentioned different numbers—my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) is obviously the numbers guru in Committee. Hon. Members who represent constituencies with high registration levels must be baffled to hear us going on about the problems of under-registration. Electoral registration officers sometimes think that Electoral Commission estimates are exaggerated, so I   conducted a survey in my constituency surgeries over a number of weeks.
	I hold my surgeries in Southwark town hall and limit the number of people who attend to 60. I filled in people's names and addresses on a form and ended consultations by saying, "Sign here to go on the electoral register." Quite a few people said, "I am already on the register", to which I replied, "It doesn't matter. If you are already on the register, they will bin this application form. Sign here, and I will take the form down the corridor to the electoral registration officer." I   put a big fluorescent "H" on each form to allow the electoral register officer to see how many people were not registered. Of people attending my surgeries, 30 per cent. were eligible to be on the register, but were not registered. We must always remember that those are real people who have the right to vote.

Andrew Turner: I understand the good intent with which the Minister conducted her survey. Does she agree that sometimes the same person is registered twice at an address simply because, for example, they use different forms of their Christian name for formal and informal activities—they might call themselves "John" in one context and "Jack" in another? The Minister's survey may have advanced that process.

Harriet Harman: When I took those forms along to the electoral registration officer in Southwark, she did not think that the names were not exactly the same or that the surname and the first name were in a different order.   We must recognise the major problem of under-registration. One of this Bill's objectives is to tackle that problem, because we cannot have a situation in which people in our democracy do not have the right to vote.
	The question involves not only individuals not having the right to vote, but social cohesion. Under-registration is not evenly spread throughout the community—it is a particularly worrying feature among black and ethnic minority communities, people living on council estates and poorer people. If we want our democracy to include everybody, we must go the extra mile to ensure that everyone is registered and that our democracy does what it says on the tin.

Brian Binley: I take the Minister's point that everybody should have the right to vote, but surprising numbers of people are excluded because of incompetence and inefficiency. Can she assure me that she will review training to ensure that local government is properly equipped and resourced to undertake it?

Harriet Harman: That is certainly the intention.
	We want to have full registration, to encourage participation and to be absolutely sure that no one fiddles the vote, which is important for the legitimacy of our democracy and the confidence that people have in it. I appreciate that we cannot play the numbers game on fraud. We cannot say that 3 million people are not registered but 3 million people are not committing fraud. Wherever fraud is identified it causes a real problem with public confidence. We must treat it with the utmost seriousness in every single ward and constituency where it occurs, because people must have confidence that those who are elected are their proper representatives in our democratic system.

David Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend undertook an interesting exercise at her advice sessions. I did something similar by linking those who turned up with those on the marked register who had used their vote in the most recent election. In North-West Leicestershire, 70 per cent. of people vote and 30 per cent. abstain, but of the people who come to advice sessions nearer half do not bother to use their vote. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a lot of work to be done between registration and participation?

Harriet Harman: I do agree. Social inequality is a problem in terms of participation as well as registration. It used to be the case that although people's educational status and health status were very much affected by their socio-economic status, the one thing that remained equal was the likelihood of their participating in an election, which showed no class differentiation. Worryingly, that has changed in the course of the past three elections. The Institute for Public Policy Research has looked at the   numbers and identified a growing gap in terms of   the likelihood that those in poorer communities will not vote. In a socially cohesive country and an egalitarian democracy, we must pay attention to people being on the register and participating in the electoral system.

Gordon Prentice: What about people who have pots of money—those who have second homes? Would it not be more equitable to have dual registration so that people vote where they spend most of their time, instead of being able to choose where to vote, perhaps in a marginal where it would count for more?

Harriet Harman: Most of those who are registered in two places are students. Because we do not know when the election will fall, it is not sensible to require people to choose in which of two places they will ultimately vote.
	The spirit of the Bill is all about encouraging registration and participation and countering fraud, and we are establishing a framework on which to do that. We will place new duties on electoral registration officers, give them new powers, and have a new performance standards regime backed up by adequate resources. Several of the issues that hon. Members raised focused on the electoral registration officers' duties and powers and, until now, their lack of performance standards and inadequate resources.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister is right to mention resources. During the recent general election, several people came to me having realised that they were not registered to vote and said that they had not registered because they were expecting a knock on the door from the local authority. That knock never came, because for several years the local authority has not been conducting annual censuses on a door-to-door basis. Does the Minister think that that should be addressed?

Harriet Harman: I can assure my hon. Friend that those people will get a knock on the door, not once but twice if they do not fill in the form and get registered the first time. It is right that we have independent electoral registration officers, but the performance standards that are laid down in the Bill will ensure that we have common high standards for electoral registration, as well as transparency and accountability.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd rightly said that we do not know how much each individual registration officer spends in their area or the   total amount spent on electoral registration. Under   the Bill, electoral registration officers will be required to report to the Electoral Commission on what they are doing, how it is working, and how much they are spending on it. That transparency will enable us to   compare neighbouring authorities, to see what is working and what is not. It is a basic building block to ensure that the citizens of this country become enfranchised by being on the register and able to vote.
	Data sharing is very important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) said. A basic commonsense issue is involved here. People are exasperated if they turn up to vote and are told, "You can't vote because you're not on the electoral register." They say, "How can the council say that I don't live there—they sent me a council tax bill yesterday?" We must be cognisant of data protection issues but also use   common sense. People do not understand why an electoral registration officer in a local authority does not use the information that it holds. That is a question not   only of the legal powers to use data but of operational practice. Such practice varies because individual registration officers interpret the rules differently—for example, some might interpret them as permissive but decide that they are not going to use the data. They should have a clear understanding of the   data that it is right for them to refer to, because those data will help them to understand where there are gaps on the register.

Chris Ruane: Will the use of local government databases be monitored on a national scale? Can we be specific about which ones we would like electoral registration officers to see, and can they be specific about which ones they use?
	Will the Minister consider—I have pushed her about this in the past—introducing secondary legislation to give EROs access to central Government databases as soon as possible, and not leave it until two or three years down the road, so that we can move forward at the same time at local and central Government level?

Harriet Harman: I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will do that as well as ensuring that electoral registration officers use the information that is already available to them for cross-referencing. They can already examine council tax records, housing benefit registers, council rent records, and the records of the planning, education and social services departments. No primary or secondary legislation is needed for that. They can also examine Royal Mail records, because they are allowed to do that by custom and practice.
	We will consider the records that existing powers do not cover but which could be covered by secondary legislation, and whether such legislation is a good idea.   That is, therefore, already on our agenda. Such information includes records held by other local authorities, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, TV Licensing, the Inland Revenue, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Land Registry. Indeed, a woman whose daughter had just become 18 but was not on the electoral register asked, "How come my daughter's not on the register? You know she's 18 because you've just written to tell me that her housing benefit's being stopped." People do not understand that.
	I believe however that data sharing is important not only to get people on the register and fill the gaps in it but to tackle fraud. Proper data sharing should have solved the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) identified. The records should have been checked to work out who was there and the appropriate action should then have been taken. Data sharing is for preventing fraud as well as ensuring full registration.
	I accept the spirit of the amendment that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) tabled on disability. Electoral registration officers are already covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 2001, which will be fully implemented, as he said, by December next year. The amendment is therefore unnecessary for changing the law, but he was right to table it. We are not simply considering one's right to   participate on the day, but electoral registration officers going the extra mile to ensure that people with disabilities that might impede their registration are registered.
	Amendment No. 14 would provide:
	"Each registration officer must take all necessary steps to remove individuals",
	and so on. That already happens. Electoral registration officers' responsibility is not simply to have loads of people on the register but to ensure that it is complete and accurate. That is implicit and explicit in their duties.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe asks us to make it a duty for electoral registration officers to "maximise" the number of people entitled to   vote who do so. I believe that our approach of requesting a complete and accurate register and setting out on the face of the Bill the extensive steps that must be taken to achieve that, including sending more than one form, knocking on the door more than once, inspecting the records, and training officials to find hard-to-reach voters, will mean a culture change. That will be effected by the Bill and the performance standards, which will be keenly examined by hon. Members of all parties. For the first time, we shall be able to see what is happening because of the greater transparency. I therefore believe that the spirit of the amendment will be enacted.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked about extending the provision to Northern Ireland. My colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are considering the matter, but I shall draw his remarks to their attention.

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider that including the word "maximise" in the Bill might make it absolutely clear that we are intent on that aim? I acknowledge that all the steps that have been taken lead in that direction, but I believe that there is a general feeling in the Committee that specifying "maximise" might be helpful.
	I take it that my right hon. and learned Friend will not accept my specific amendments on data sharing and is considering introducing secondary legislation. Will she give me an assurance that she will examine the range of possibilities that has been mentioned today? I am especially concerned about cases of, for example, one local authority having access to its council housing records when another does not—that means different approaches—and, as happens in Sheffield, of electoral registration officers having access to information from a sixth form in a school but not in a college.

Harriet Harman: We shall consider both the information that electoral registration officers use and information that they might not currently have the power to use but which, we believe, they need. Those points are already well understood. We are determined to ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote is on the register. Whether we call it "maximising" the register or having a complete register is   simply a matter of words, but I agree with the spirit of my hon. Friend's amendments, which is embodied in the Bill, that no one who is eligible should be denied the right to vote. Everyone who is eligible should be able to vote by being on the electoral register.
	Our debate has been useful as well as lengthy and we have considered the matter widely. There is a large measure of agreement, but I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Jonathan Djanogly: I shall be brief. If there is no integrity in the register, there is little on which to base a democratic system. Hon. Members have agreed with that point today. The Minister implied that our amendment was exclusive from the Government's proposal, but that is not what I said. We believe that the amendment is   complementary. We support the Bill but believe that it does not contain the balance, which all hon. Members have discussed. We want that to be addressed. However, given that we will cover the matter again when we consider individual registration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10
	 — 
	Anonymous registration

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 7, line 17, at end insert—
	'(2A)   In determining whether the safety of a person, or of his child (who resides at the same address), is at risk in accordance with subsection (2), the applicant must provide written evidence from a government or local authority body or the police to illustrate that risk. A desire for privacy in itself shall not be grounds for anonymity unless there is evidence of ongoing risk to personal safety.'.

Sylvia Heal: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 7, line 29, leave out from 'address' to end of line 30 and insert
	'an entry is to be made in accordance with section 9 above.'.
	No. 3, in page 8, line 18, leave out from 'registered' to end of line 20 and insert
	'in pursuance of a further application.'.

Jonathan Djanogly: The clause has wide-ranging support, not only from us, but from bodies such as the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers—SOLACE. We even called for such a provision during the passage of the Representation of the People Act 2000.
	Establishing a system of anonymous registration for people whose safety could be compromised if their addresses were known represents a helpful step forward. The amendment would prevent overuse and abuse of the protection of anonymity. It also includes risk to children. There is clearly a need to protect children living in the same household whose safety may be at risk if details of the parent are included on the public register. I should be grateful if the Minister dealt with that.
	Non-registration prevents an individual not only from voting, but, under the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, from donating to a political party or referendum campaign. Given that parties must check that a donor is on the register, clear processes need to be in place so that they can verify and accept donations from electors who are "anonymous". Will the Minister confirm that parties can verify and accept donations from "anonymous" electors?
	There is a need for clear criteria for anonymity, rather than leaving it up to the personal opinion of the electoral registration officers, which could change from place to place and lead to inconsistency of application. The amendment would require written evidence from a Government or local authority body or the police to show that a risk exists. The bodies would confirm the existence of the risk. That would prevent anonymity being granted to people whose safety is not genuinely at risk.
	An interesting comparison is with the confidentiality orders in relation to company directors pursuant to section 723B(1) of the Companies Act 1985. An individual who is or proposes to become a director or secretary of a company and who considers that the availability for inspection by members of the public of particulars of his usual residential address creates, or is   likely to create, a serious risk that he or a person who lives with him will be subjected to violence or intimidation, may make an application to the Secretary of State for a confidentiality order. Is it envisaged that the granting of anonymity under this clause will operate in a similar way, but with applications being made to the relevant registration officer rather than to the Secretary of State? Is the Minister not concerned about the inconsistency of application that might arise from this differing application? What exactly will be the threshold for the granting of anonymity?
	It seems an unfair expectation to place on registration officers that they should be able, alone, to determine safety risks associated with public registration. Perhaps giving electors the right to appeal the local registration officer's decision to the Secretary of State would be a   way forward. This, along with wider powers of consultation, would allow for consistency of application, while at the   same time allowing appropriate determination on a case-by-case basis. Will the Minister look into this and provide reassurances that the clause will be tightened to ensure that it is not open to abuse, that registration officers will have sufficient support in making a decision on anonymity, and that application of this clause will be consistent between electoral registration officers?
	I understand that, once the electoral canvass has been received, the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 place a duty on the head of a household to return the form with the names of those in the household, whether or not they are eligible to vote. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this point. In other words, there is a duty to register, albeit a duty involving the out-of-date notion of a head of household. However, this seems to be contradicted by proposed new section 9B(6) to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which is dealt with in clause 10, and which seems to contain a loophole whereby the duty to register could be avoided in the event of an unsuccessful application for anonymity. Might that not encourage spurious applications to be made in order to avoid being placed on the electoral roll? That is a loophole that our amendment would close, although subject, I would hope, to an appeal to the Secretary of State.

Celia Barlow: I applaud the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr.   Djanogly) over consistency, as well as his support for registration officers, and the inclusion of children in his amendment, but I am worried that victims of domestic violence who are moving to a new place, and a new life, might be concerned as to whether their anonymity was adequately safeguarded. Madam Speaker, the police and local authorities at their new location should not be privy to their distressing past. The involvement of the police at their original home, for example, might have involved litigation that the person had fled that home to avoid. I am also worried, Madam Speaker, that, despite the location of such vulnerable people being kept strictly anonymous by the registration officer, if they should lose their right to appear on the register, that location could be revealed in a way that does not happen at the moment.
	There are many reasons why a person would want to stay on the electoral register. In my constituency of Hove and Portslade, for example, it is impossible to get a parking permit without being on the register. I am also   worried about some of the wider issues involved. Article   8 of the European convention on human rights states that a person's right to privacy should not be interfered with unless it
	"is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
	I cannot see how that relates to placing a vulnerable person's name on a register that can be publicly viewed.
	Also, if I understand the proposal correctly, if a person failed to provide evidence involving the local authority or the police, their name could be revealed on the register that can be purchased. In other words, such people's protection would be reduced rather than increased. Some of my hon. Friends might disagree with the present situation in which we do not have compulsory voting, but article 8 of the ECHR allows for that privacy to be maintained, and takes precedence over a rule that does not insist that a person should vote. I also fail to understand how it would be in the interest of these vulnerable people to force them to give written evidence in support of their claim for privacy. I hope that the hon. Member for Huntingdon will withdraw his amendment.

The First Deputy Chairman: May I advise right hon.   and hon. Members that the correct way to address the Chair when we are in Committee is by name rather than by office? I call Mr. David Heath.

David Heath: I am grateful for that advice, Mrs. Heal.

Chris Ruane: A timely prompt.

David Heath: I do not think that I needed one, actually.
	I commend the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr.   Djanogly) for tabling the amendment, because it probes the intentions of the Government, and it is of value to understand them. I was slightly worried that, at one point, the hon. Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) was going to demolish the whole principle of the electoral register on human rights grounds. I hope that that is not a path that we shall go down, although I know that she was doing it for the best of purposes.
	We have compulsory registration in this country, so the proposal is welcome in providing for the safety of individuals. The Minister might like to consider whether it would be appropriate for a court to make an order under domestic violence legislation that a person not be added to the electoral register, or that they be allowed to make an anonymous registration. I also agree that this matter should not be trivialised, and that we should not allow considerations of celebrity to be equated with risk. That could be an all too likely consequence of the Bill unless its intentions are made very clear.
	Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 deal with a slightly different matter. I am genuinely confused, because proposed new section 9B(6) seems to say that, if someone applies for an anonymous registration and fails, they should be removed from the register altogether. That does not seem consistent with the general terms of registration or with the expectation in the Bill that we should maximise voter registration. It would seem appropriate that, if someone were not entitled to anonymous registration, their application should be put into the register in the normal way. Of course, it might be expedient to put it into the part of the register that is not distributed; as we know, the   register is now produced in two versions. It seems very odd that someone who has applied for anonymous registration, and who presumably does live at the stated address and has been checked out and found to be someone who should be properly registered, should, by statute, not be registered because they have failed to convince a registration officer that they were entitled to   anonymous registration.
	Similarly, proposed new section 9C(3) states that, when someone ceases to be registered anonymously, they are required to be removed from the register unless they make a further application, rather than simply being added to the register as an ordinary registration, which logic would suggest is what ought to happen. Perhaps there is some cunning intent on the part of the Government here, or perhaps the drafting of the Bill leaves something to be desired. I would be grateful to find out from the Minister which it is.

Harriet Harman: I do not think that there is any cunning intent. We are just trying to be sensible here, and to ensure that everyone gets registered to vote, and that those who have fled domestic violence are not deterred from registering to vote because they fear that they will appear on an electoral register. However, we do not want to introduce a blanket provision under which everyone could sign themselves off the register. We have   therefore sought to introduce a special provision that allows for an application for an anonymous registration.
	However, if the default position, after an application for an anonymous registration runs out or fails ab initio, is that the person goes straight on to the register, our concern is that they will never apply in the first place because they will not have control of the situation. So, this is not perfect; one just has to round the edges one way or another. However, having consulted with organisations such as Refuge and those involved in the field, we think that this is the most sensible way to proceed.
	The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) asked what will happen if the electoral registration officer refuses to accept an application for anonymous registration. It is possible to appeal to the county court. I hope that that will bear down on electoral registration officers and make them feel accountable, but we all know that the reality is that the last thing someone fleeing domestic violence and building themselves a new life wants to do is take their electoral registration officer to court to secure their place on the register, but anonymously. It is right, obviously, that there should be an appeal system.
	The hon. Gentleman made a good point about the safety of children. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) also talked about the effect of violence on children. The Bill talks about the electoral registration officer determining the question of "the person's safety". The hon. Member for Huntingdon said, "What about the children's safety?" This is a good and sensible suggestion, and we will look at it. It might be that we need to add something there. It looks like he has a point.

David Heath: I think that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) has made a sensible point, but it occurs to me that there is an ancillary point involving those who are given anonymous protection under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, where that   protection extends to other persons who are not the   individual in question. The Minister might like to cross-reference that enactment to see whether another amendment needs to be made.

Harriet Harman: As we are going to look at the question of children, I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we look at that as well.
	If I may, I shall deal quickly and in detail with the question of the effect of the amendments and why we suggest that they should not be pressed. Amendments Nos. 15, 2 and 3 would vary the provisions of anonymous registration. As I have said, those provisions will set up a scheme through which a person may register to vote without their name and address appearing on the electoral register. Anonymous registration is designed to protect vulnerable people in society, whose safety might be at risk if their address were made public. It is also designed to be limited to those who genuinely need it; there will be no question of simply opting out. In Australia and New Zealand, where such systems operate, about 0.15 per cent. of the electorate avail themselves of such provisions.
	Amendment No. 15 would set out in the Bill the evidence required from a person wishing to register anonymously. While we agree that evidence must be required, and that a simple desire for privacy must not be grounds for anonymity, we cannot accept the amendment because, in our view, the appropriate place for a list of evidence is in regulations made by affirmative order. That allows for parliamentary scrutiny and a degree of flexibility. Setting out a definitive list of evidence in the Bill would risk excluding groups of   people that perhaps ought properly to be covered.
	We have consulted and gained the support of groups, including Victim Support, and the Network for Surviving Stalking and Refuge. We will continue to consult them as we implement these measures, and indeed on the question of children, on which we will also consult the hon. Member for Huntingdon.
	From consultation so far, we envisage that the evidence needed to show a threat to safety will include injunctions and court orders, which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has already mentioned, as well as restraining orders, participation in a witness protection scheme or a letter from a police officer confirming a specific threat.
	Amendment No. 2 would require a registration officer to register a person in the usual way if their anonymous registration application failed. For the reasons I gave to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, that would reverse our policy on failed applications for anonymous registration. That is why we do not want to accept that   amendment. It would, in effect, work against the purpose of anonymous registration.
	Another reason for rejecting the amendment is that applying for anonymous registration will be voluntary. It will not be part of the annual canvass; instead, it will be more akin to rolling registration. As with rolling registration, therefore, a person should not be entered on the electoral register unless they have expressly applied to be so.
	There is already a process for ensuring that people register to vote—the annual canvass. If a person's application for anonymous registration fails, they will be sent an annual canvass form in the normal way in due course. Through that existing process—not through a change of policy that could discourage vulnerable people from applying to be franchised safely—we should seek to ensure that all eligible people are registered.
	Amendment No. 3 would mean that when a person's anonymous registration was terminated, that person would have an ordinary entry on the register if they were to make a rolling registration application. We believe that it is unnecessary. Although it is not explicitly stated, a person retains the ability to register through rolling registration when their anonymous entry expires. Specific provision as it would be inserted by the amendment is therefore not required.
	For those reasons, I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments. We will return to these issues in due course.

Jonathan Djanogly: I thank the Minister for her clarifications and her offer to consider the clause further. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11
	 — 
	Alterations of registers: pending elections

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 8, line 26, leave out subsection (2).

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in page 8, line 28, leave out "fifth" and insert "seventh".
	No. 16, in page 8, line 28, leave out "fifth" and insert "fifteenth".
	No. 11, in page 9, line 1, leave out "fifth" and insert "seventh".
	No. 17, in page 9, line 1, leave out "fifth" and insert "fifteenth".

Andrew Turner: I shall be as brief as I can. I propose the removal of subsection (2). I have three objections to it. First, I have a fundamental objection to changing the list of electors in the middle of an election. Secondly, I   believe that people should take responsibility for their own registration. We should not over-complicate the system for returning officers, and indeed those engaged in elections, to accommodate those who have failed so   to do. Thirdly, the system should balance the opportunity to do what is lawful against the temptation to do what is unlawful.
	For many months at the beginning of this year, the Government denied that the postal vote system is open to abuse, but that blew up in their face in the Birmingham city council 2004 elections case, and indeed in the Blackburn case of 2002. I do not want us to get into a position whereby vote stealing is replaced by wrongful registration as a means of fiddling election results. Those are my philosophical reasons for objecting to the measure. In a moment, I shall move on to my practical reasons.

Chris Ruane: Can the hon. Gentleman cite any research on the level of vote fiddling?

Andrew Turner: Of course I cannot cite any research evidence as to what vote fiddling there would be in relation to the clause, because the clause is not yet law. It is my hope that it will not become law, but we know that there was vote fiddling and widespread fraud in the 2004 Birmingham city council elections, and more than 200 votes were abused in Blackburn in 2002.
	My practical reasons for objecting to the clause, and indeed to the Liberal Democrat amendment, involve, first, postal votes and, secondly, the capacity of candidates to communicate with their electors. I intend to rely on the D-minus system to enumerate the days leading up to elections, whereby D minus one is the day   before the poll and D minus 17 is the date of proclamation or issue of writ in a general election.
	Under the Government's proposals, people would have to apply by D minus 11 to be on the register by D   minus five. Under the Liberal Democrat proposals, people would have to apply by D minus 13 to be on the register by D minus seven. Under the proposals tabled by my hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench, people would have to apply by D minus 20 to be on the register by D minus 15. If people want a postal vote, they have to apply by D minus 11. They will be eligible to apply for a postal vote only if my amendment, or the proposal tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues, is agreed to.
	The second problem involves candidates communicating with their electors. The Royal Mail indicative timetable for the freepost, which I have in front of me, shows that the   latest acceptable day for unaddressed items in the highlands, islands and rural areas is D minus 10. For addressed items, it is D minus seven. The latest day for   addressed mail in any other part of the country is D   minus three.
	That makes it practically impossible to get literature into the freepost, addressed from the printers to the addressing company, from the addressing company to the Royal Mail, and from the Royal Mail into the post, in time to communicate with electors. It is fundamental that candidates can communicate with electors. The clause, which is not, as far as I can see, recommended directly either by the Electoral Commission or the OPDM Committee, makes it too easy to do something, and thereby makes it too difficult for candidates and others to communicate with electors.
	There are 1,200 days in the average four-year parliamentary term during which someone can apply to be registered. It is a great pity if they can only apply in the three or four days after a general election is called.

David Heath: I can also be brief. I support the Government's view that the maximum amount of time should be allowed for late registrations. We have all had the experience of knocking on doors during a general election campaign and speaking to people who are distraught because they are not on the register when they thought that they were, and who find that they cannot vote as they want to do. It seems appropriate that we give them the maximum time to register. Either they are entitled to vote or not. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) says that, if they are tardy or feckless, they should not be allowed to vote. I am sorry, but I do not agree. If they are entitled to vote, they should be able to do so, within the constraints and practicalities of the registration process.
	My amendment moves the relevant date from the fifth to the seventh day before the poll. That is partly a probing amendment, because I want to clarify that we are referring to working days. If that is not the case, the deadline on the fifth day before the poll will be on Saturday evening, and that is not in practical terms the most sensible deadline to give registration officers for the registration of new electors. I would have thought that Thursday evening would be a more sensible deadline.
	I also want to deal with the problem mentioned by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight: once someone has gone on to the register at that late stage, it is appropriate that they receive something from the candidates to inform their vote if the parties are capable of doing that. The amendment provides a little extra scope to do that without defeating the objective of the Government. I   would be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Brian Binley: I am an old campaigner and, in the old days, as the Minister will know, we used to publish B   and C lists. The whole concept of the register was open to scrutiny by everybody. That was one of the ways in which we maintained a fairness and credibility in the register of electors, which I was sorry to see go.
	As I understand it—there might be a built-in opportunity to do this—most electoral registration officers are willing to take comment if people feel that a mistake has been made. In that respect, my concern is that five days is just not enough time to go through that process. We have already argued that it is right and proper that everybody should have the right to vote, but it is equally right and proper that the register, which is a public document, should be seen to be fair and open to scrutiny. Enough time should be allowed for that scrutiny to take place, and some mechanism should be available to amend the register if mistakes are made. I   therefore appeal for a longer period than that suggested in the Bill.

Jonathan Djanogly: The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) would maintain the status quo. We believe that moving the last day for   registration closer to polling day could benefit registration, so we shall not support his amendment. Although moving the last day for registration to 11 days before polling day is in alignment with the close of nominations, we are concerned that that is too close to polling day. To that extent, we believe that my hon. Friend points in the right direction. The Liberal Democrats propose a change of only two days, and we struggle to see what difference that would make, although I would be interested to hear the Minister's views.
	There is no doubt that a change in the deadline is welcome. The current rolling registration law means that the register is updated every month, but, to vote, a person must be on the register for the month in which an election begins. The closing date is usually midway through the previous month, which means that the deadline for the 2005 general election was fully six weeks before polling day. Moving the last registration day closer to polling day will allow people to register when they hear that the general election is called and is a valid way of encouraging greater registration, as interest and awareness among the electorate tends to peak closer to polling day.
	It has also been proposed that registering to vote and submission of postal votes will have the same 11-day deadline. We are concerned that that will put enormous pressure on electoral registration officers. Does the Minister agree that there simply will not be enough time for the appropriate checks to be carried out on each application? Will EROs really be able to manage such a large number of last-minute applications at one of the most hectic times of the year? Will the objection process for questioning dubious registrations work effectively? That could be an issue of concern, particularly in marginal seats and as we attempt to combat fraud in the electoral system. What provisions will be in place for the   Royal Mail to deliver election literature via the freepost to late applicants? Will there be an opportunity for last-minute mailing to them?
	The questions go on, and time does not allow me to ask all of them, but I think that the Minister sees where I am coming from on this issue.

Harriet Harman: The last general election took place on 5 May, but the closing date for registration was 11 March, almost two months prior to polling day and before the election had even been called. For the reasons given by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), that is a problem. The momentum to register often comes when parties are out and about on the doorstep. That is an important opportunity to get unregistered people on the register and it is frustrating if the deadline has already passed.
	The clause to which the amendments relate seeks to correct the situation by moving the closing date for registration to 11 days prior to the day of the poll. The amendments would put the deadline further back, either by retaining the status quo under amendment No. 27, or by moving it to 13 days prior to polling day under amendments Nos. 10 and 11 or to more than 20 days before the day of the poll under amendments Nos.   16 and 17. Amendment No. 27 would also affect the correction of clerical errors, which I will mention later.
	Setting the closing date for registration to vote involves finding the correct balance between making the system accessible to electors while not putting undue burdens on those administering the system. The proposal to move the deadline for registration to 11 days before polling day came initially from the Electoral Commission's report, "The Electoral Registration Process". The commission held a full consultation and concluded that the correct deadline for registration was the day on which nominations close. In parliamentary elections, that is 11 days prior to polling day.
	Electoral registration officers will add names to the   register only when they have made a determination that it is correct to do so. If they cannot make that determination—perhaps because of public objections—they will not add a person's name to the register. The clause therefore does nothing to weaken the protections in place to prevent fraud.

Andrew Love: Is not the critical factor that a general election, with all the general publicity and with field workers knocking on doors daily, presents an opportunity to put people on the register? If we close that opportunity too soon, we simply do not allow people to vote in that election.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is exactly right and that is exactly why we have included this clause in the Bill.
	Separately from the Bill, through secondary legislation in due course, we propose to move the closing date for applying for a postal vote back from six days prior to an election, which is the current provision, to 11 days prior. The change is intended to give administrators more time to perform checks on the veracity of applications and relieve the administrative burden on them in the period before polling day.
	It has been argued that moving to an 11-day deadline for both registration and postal vote applications might create an unmanageable spike in administrators' work loads. I believe that that view is incorrect. The proposed change to the deadline for postal vote applications will give administrators significantly more time to consider and process applications. It will not be the case that they must all be processed en masse on the day of the deadline. After all, until nominations have closed, it will not be possible to print ballot papers and begin to post them out. The combination of deadlines should therefore pose no significant administrative problems.
	Synchronisation will make the system clearer for electors. I fear that it will never be very clear, but at least it will be a bit clearer. Local authorities and the Electoral Commission will be able to publicise a single deadline for people to meet to secure their vote by registering and applying for a postal vote. That should make the process easier to understand and reduce the likelihood of a person being disfranchised due to either not registering or not applying for a postal vote.
	I am happy to be able to reassure those Members who have expressed concern that the requirement to alter registers five days before the day of poll might create a burden on administrators over the weekend, as polling day is traditionally a Thursday. Sections 13B and 119 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 provide that, when we refer to a period of days of less than seven in this part of the Bill, we refer to working days. There is no possibility, therefore, of anything happening on a Saturday night.
	As I mentioned earlier, amendment No. 27 also affects clerical errors. Clause 11 gives effect to an Electoral Commission recommendation to move the final date for correcting errors such as a misspelled entry on the register or an accidental omission to the day of poll. The amendment would have the effect of retaining the status quo of only allowing corrections up to five days prior to polling day. That is a considerable problem. Clerical errors can mean that quite large numbers of people cannot vote and that does not make sense. Given that clerical errors are most likely to come to light on polling day, when a person attempts to vote, the Government believe that it is right to allow registration officers to correct errors and allow a person to cast a ballot.
	As with moving the registration deadline, there can be no question of this change opening the door to fraud. Firstly, it is not possible for a person purposefully to have their entry created incorrectly. Secondly, if the registration officer cannot determine that an error has been made—for example, by checking the information held on file—he is under no obligation to make the amendment. Freepost will not be affected.
	I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner: I will certainly think about what the Minister said and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Registration of service personnel

'(1)   After section 10A of the 1983 Act (Preparation of registers) insert—
	"10B   Right to be registered
	(1)   A person who may be entitled to vote as an elector at parliamentary elections for which any register is to be used is entitled to be registered in that register, subject to subsections (2) and (3) below.
	(2)   A person who on the qualifying date has a service qualification is not entitled to be registered as mentioned in subsection (1) above except in pursuance of an appropriate service declaration; and in this subsection and in subsection (3) below "appropriate service declaration" means—
	(a)   in the case of a person who on the qualifying date is a member of the forces or the wife or husband of such a member, a service declaration made in accordance with section 15 below and in force on that date; and
	(b)   in any other case, a service declaration made in accordance with that section with reference to that date.
	(3)   Subsection (2) above does not apply to a person who on the qualifying date is the wife or husband of a member of the forces if on that date—
	(a)   that person has no other service qualification;
	(b)   that person is resident in the United Kingdom; and
	(c)   no appropriate service declaration is in force in respect of that person.".'.—[Mr. Tyrie.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Tyrie: I beg to move that the clause be read a Second time. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] It is gratifying to hear such noises in the Committee; I have the sense that they may have come from more than one part of it.
	The purpose of the clause is simple to explain. It is to restore the armed services personnel scheme that used to   exist and to take the armed services back to the position they enjoyed prior to the 2000 Act. It will mean that at the next election all service personnel will be registered to vote.
	The fact that we need a clause such as this tells its own story. It is a story of a Government who took us to war in Iraq having just disfranchised a large proportion of the servicemen who were fighting in it. But it is worse than that. It is a story of a Government who were warned repeatedly that this would be the consequence of what they put on the statute book in 2000. I warned the Government repeatedly in the nine months prior to the   election that as many as half of all service voters would be disenfranchised unless they took urgent action. I have discovered that a number of senior officers also warned the Government that their men did not have the vote, but no action was taken.
	I fear that we may get some promises and assurances but nothing more concrete from the Minister and I   really do not think that is going to be enough this time. We must not be put off with a few more assurances. It is   all too reminiscent of what I heard from the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the then hon. Member for Hove, in a debate in Westminster Hall. He committed himself to discussions with the Electoral Commission and said he would come back to me. The fact is that he did virtually nothing more than sit on his hands. The Government and the Electoral Commission could, and should, have done much, much more.
	To her credit, the Minister has admitted that a serious mistake has been made by the Government and, again to her credit, is now committed to trying to do something about it. Whether she can carry her Cabinet colleagues—I am told that there is not uniformity of view on the issue—is another matter.
	Nobody who knows anything about the scheme that I am proposing that we put back on to the statute book is suggesting that it is perfect. It carries the problem that the register can be out of date and that service personnel can lose any connection with the area in which they vote. It means that a higher proportion is likely to be voting by proxy. But at least they will be registered. It will force the MOD to track each serviceman and process their application. Of course, the MOD might prefer not to have that chore and I have no doubt that it will be briefing behind the scenes about polishing up the new arrangements, rather than going back to the old scheme.
	I recognise the problems with the old scheme, but at least it worked. I do not think that we can take any more risks with service personnel registration. We cannot afford to go into another election, as we did the last, with so many off the register. I am worried that some clever scheme is in the process of being cooked up in an interdepartmental committee as an alternative to getting back to the old scheme. I put it to the Committee that the only sensible way forward is to put the clause into the Bill. At least we would then know that, at the next election, servicemen will get the vote.
	The statute book is littered with faulty clauses, and the unintended consequences that flow from them, that were drafted on the hoof while legislation was passing through this House. On this issue, we cannot afford another such mistake and we cannot rely on a Government assurance about coming back to us and possibly drafting another clause in another place. That is why I hope the Committee will be able to support my new clause tonight.

Harriet Harman: I said at the outset that our motivation was to ensure that everybody entitled to vote was on the register. We talked about socially excluded groups—poor people, people living on council estates and new Commonwealth citizens—but there is a great deal of concern on both sides of the Committee in relation to service personnel. I recognise that, on Second Reading, there was what I would describe as zero tolerance for any service personnel not being on the register. I sense that hon. Members feel not only that it is important that those who serve our country in the armed forces should be on the register, but are slightly baffled as to how it is that people can be recruited, employed and engaged in the armed forces but somehow we cannot get the rocket science working to register them.
	This problem requires us to deal with the electoral system, but also with how the armed forces are organised, on which many hon. Members will be more expert than me. My ministerial colleagues in the MOD are more expert than me and this important issue is of   concern to them. We have met the Electoral Commission with MOD colleagues and are considering actively how we make absolutely sure that we do not have another attempt to improve the situation that does not work. We do not want to move from one problem to another and I do not think that returning to the status quo ante of 2000 is a good idea.
	We accept many of the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the current scheme. It was changed because it was characterised both by low registration rates—albeit probably not as low as the present rates—and by inaccurate registers that were wrongly inflated in certain areas. There was a problem that we needed to address. We might have made it worse; we are trying to make it better.

Jonathan Djanogly: Has the Minister considered returning to the old system, but ensuring that the military have an obligation to tell registration officers when people leave?

Harriet Harman: That is a good point, but it is for the MOD to consult the armed services.
	The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) does not want to receive assurances and then wonder where the beef is when nothing transpires. I accept the arguments of Members who have made their case and proved their point. As far as I can see, we have yet to find the right formula to solve the problem. We need a fail-safe system to back up the efforts already being made by the MOD, the armed forces and the Electoral Commission, but I do not think that returning to the status quo ante is good enough. We are trying to find solutions and we will consider, in consultation with the MOD and the armed services, whether we need to include powers in the Bill that we could use if what is being done by the Electoral Commission and the MOD does not work.
	I entirely accept the spirit of the new clause and the criticisms that have been made. I remind Members that efforts are being made to sort the matter out and that we intend to consider whether we need primary legislation in the form of a new clause to sort it out once and for all.
	I do not want it to be possible for people to be out in the armed services in different parts of the world without its being possible to enfranchise them in our democracy. I accept that that is not satisfactory and I am determined that we shall do something about it.

David Heath: The present situation is entirely unacceptable. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr.   Tyrie) has done the Committee a service by proposing a measure that would at least return us to a more acceptable position. I heard what the Minister said and do not doubt her good intentions, but this is not a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss with the military; it is for the Minister to discuss with the Secretary of State for Defence why he is not performing his duties to the people in his care by giving them the franchise. Until there are concrete proposals, the Committee should support the new clause.

Andrew Robathan: Let me say briefly that I had a meeting with—
	It being two and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the Bill, The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [25 October].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 217, Noes 288.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 13
	 — 
	Registration: personal identifiers

Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 11, line 11, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
	'(2)   In section 10 (maintenance of registers: annual canvass), after subsection (4) there is inserted—
	"(4A)   Subject to subsection (4B) below, the information to be obtained by the use of such a form for the purpose of a canvass shall include—
	(a)   the signature of each of the persons in relation to whom the form is completed;
	(b)   the date of birth of each such person; and
	(c)   in relation to each such person—
	(i)   his national insurance number or a statement that he does not have one,
	(ii)   a statement of whether or not he has been resident in the United Kingdom for the whole of the three-month period ending on 15th October in the year in question, and
	(iii)   any address in the United Kingdom in respect of which he is or has applied to be registered (other than the address in respect of which the form is completed), and the power in subsection (4) above to prescribe a form includes power to give effect to the requirements of the subsection.
	(4B)   The Chief Electoral Officer may dispense with the requirement mentioned in subsection (4A)(a) above in relation to any person if he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for that person to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any incapacity of his or because he is unable to read.".
	(3)   In section 10A (maintenance of registers: registration of electors)—
	(a)   after subsection (1) there is inserted—
	"(1A)   Subject to subsection (1B) below, an application for registration in respect of an address in the United Kingdom shall include—
	(a)   the signature of each of the persons to whom the application relates;
	(b)   the date of birth of each such person; and
	(c)   in relation to each such person—
	(i)   his national insurance number or a statement that he does not have one,
	(ii)   a statement of whether or not he has been resident in the United Kingdom for the whole of the three-month period ending on the date of the application, and
	(iii)   any other address in the United Kingdom in respect of which he is or has applied to be registered, and the power in subsection (1) above to prescribe requirements includes power to give effect to the requirements of this subsection.
	(1B)   The Chief Electoral Officer may dispense with the requirement mentioned in subsection (1A)(a) above in relation to any person if he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for that person to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any incapacity of his or because he is unable to read.",
	(b)   in subsection (5), at the beginning there is inserted "Subject to subsection (5A) below,",
	(c)   after subsection (5) there is inserted—
	"(5A)   A person's name is to be removed from the register in respect of any address if—
	(a)   the form mentioned in section 10(4) above in respect of that address does not include all the information relating to him required by virtue of section 10(4A) above; or
	(b)   the registration officer determines that he is not satisfied with the information relating to that person which was included in that form pursuant to that requirement.".
	(d)   in subsection (6), after "above", there is inserted "or his name is to be removed from it by virtue of subsection (5A) above,", and
	(e)   in subsection (8), after "5", there is inserted ", (5A)".
	(4)   In section 13A (alteration of registers), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
	"(2A)   Subject to subsection (2B) below, an application for registration under subsection (1)(a) above in respect of an address in the United Kingdom shall include—
	(a)   the signature of each of the persons to whom the application relates;
	(b)   the date of birth of each such person; and
	(c)   in relation to each such person—
	(i)   his national insurance number or a statement that he does not have one,
	(ii)   a statement of whether or not he has been resident in the United Kingdom for the whole of the three-month period ending on the date of the application, and
	(iii)   any other address in the United Kingdom in respect of which he is or has applied to be registered, and the power in subsection (1)(a) above to prescribe requirements includes power to give effect to the requirements of this subsection.
	(2B)   The Chief Electoral Officer may dispense with the requirement mentioned in subsection (2A)(a) above in relation to any person if he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for that person to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any incapacity of his or because he is unable to read.".'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 20, in clause 15, page 14, line 23, after 'provisions', insert
	', including collection of National Insurance numbers,'.

Oliver Heald: The purpose of the amendment, which follows the wording of the Northern Ireland legislation, is to include national insurance numbers in the personal identifiers listed in the clause. It is also designed to make it not just a pilot, but a permanent scheme, with national insurance numbers included.
	Why? We know that postal voting on demand has led to an upsurge in postal voting, which is welcome, but there is a need for proper anti-fraud measures. We have already discussed this evening strengthening the accuracy of the register, but most of those who have looked into the problem believe that individual voter registration, coupled with proper personal identifiers, is the answer. Ensuring proper verification is important.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) spoke earlier about the Australian system. In Australia, it is an offence not to vote, so if someone on the register is to be prosecuted for not voting, the register has to be   an accurate. That has been the spur in Australia. Personally, I am not in favour of compulsory voting, but I believe that we should have an accurate register, and the amendments provide an opportunity to bring that about.
	The amendments follow the wording and pattern of what was successfully introduced in Northern Ireland. The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 introduced individual voter registration, coupled with personal identifiers—and it worked. The numbers registered have fallen, but the levels are still high—92 per cent. of census—and the accuracy is excellent. The Northern Ireland Office and the Select Committee praised the new system, saying that it had been successful in reducing the perception among the electorate of the prevalence of fraud and the actual level of fraud.
	Some suggest that some of those who are entitled to vote have missed out and that 120,000 have been disenfranchised, but that is simply untrue. The Electoral Commission said clearly:
	"We do not agree with the assertion that 120,000 . . . were disenfranchised".
	Anyone who has spoken to Denis Stanley, the electoral registration officer in Northern Ireland, will know that that argument is simply unsustainable.
	I am the first to agree with Government Members who say that we need not only accuracy, but a really good campaign to increase registration.

Chris Ruane: rose—

Oliver Heald: It looks as though the hon. Gentleman, who wants to intervene, has been pressing that case strongly. I agree with him about that. I am not saying that we need only measures to make the register more accurate; I am saying that we should do both. It was said of the late, great Spiro Agnew—perhaps not so great—that he was a man who found it difficult both to walk down the sidewalk and chew gum. I think that we can do better.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman referred to Northern Ireland statistics. Let me repeat that when the changes were introduced there, the electoral register went down to either 84 or 86 per cent., even after the advertising and the political campaign. According to   Sam Younger in a letter of last week, it is still only at   91 per cent. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that 91 per cent.—effectively 10 per cent. of people disenfranchised—is good enough?

Oliver Heald: My figures relate to September, when   I   spoke to the electoral registration officer, and it   was 92 per cent. I believe that that is an accurate and up-to-date figure. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have talked about circumstances in which far fewer percentages than that were registered on the mainland. It is all very well saying that 3 million or so are not registered: I agree, but let us remember that it has been like that for 10 years and there has been no improvement. It has to be said that the worst areas are often controlled by Labour councils.

Jim Devine: The hon. Gentleman is correct that voter registration has fallen over the last 10 or 15 years—coincidental with the introduction of the poll tax. People were concerned that the information that they provided would be used by other bodies. Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that his proposals might put off even more people from registering? If national insurance numbers were to be used, for example, people might be concerned about identity theft.

Oliver Heald: I would credit the hon. Gentleman for just one point there. He may not remember, but the poll tax or community charge was longer ago than 10 years. It may be fresh in his memory because it is mentioned so often in his leaflets. It is often argued that nobody knows their national insurance number, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not make that point, because it is a terribly middle-class point to make. The fact is that the deprived people in our society—people claiming benefits, those in receipt of weekly pay packets and so forth—know their national insurance numbers, because they see them more often than others. I know my national insurance number and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows his. I want to continue with my argument because I am making a serious point about individual registration and do not want to talk just about national insurance numbers.
	If we believe in one person, one vote, then individual voter registration is the right way forward. Why should someone else register for us? The concept of a head of   household is an old-fashioned and, I believe, inappropriate way of dealing with the problem. Many homes in multiple occupation simply do not have a head of household to whom one could point. It also reinforces a stereotype, saying to young people that this is someone else's business, not theirs. If the form is completed and personal identifiers are adduced for a whole household in multiple occupation, there is a risk of electoral fraud.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman mentions houses in multiple occupation. The west ward of Rhyl, in which my office is based, is the poorest ward in the whole of Wales—the poorest out of 865 wards. There are 900 HMOs there and since 1997, voter registration in that area has gone down by 30 per cent. under the current system, which allows the head of household to register in that way. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the number of people registering to vote in that ward of Rhyl will go up or down as a result of single signatures?

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: people in HMOs are poor at registering to vote. Why is that? It may be because one person is being sent the form for the whole household—the reality being that a group of people share the flat—and that that person simply cannot be bothered to fill the form in for the others. I believe that a more individual approach, targeting each person in turn, is more likely to succeed than the current failed approach, which the hon. Gentleman seems to want to continue with. He admits that registration has gone down in that ward by 30 per cent. in recent years and he invites us to build on that success. Surely we should look at why the system has failed so badly.
	I am all in favour of data matching, and think that it is a good idea. I want us to be proactive in this matter, because a register must be accurate in two ways: it should not contain names that should not appear; and it should contain names that should.
	We need to get beyond the use of names such as Hootie McBoob and Gus Troobev—the latter is an anagram of "bogus voter"—on voter registration forms. That still happens, but the Electoral Commission has taken a constructive approach. Instead of insisting on full individual voter registration now, it proposes that we try to tackle the problem of postal voting fraud. In its evidence to the Select Committee, it suggested a very modest approach. It said:
	"The transitional arrangement we discussed with the Select Committee would give people the option to provide their signature and date of birth on a voluntary basis when responding to the annual canvass. But it would be mandatory for those wishing to vote by post or proxy".
	That transitional approach is a very modest proposal, compared with what the Electoral Commission asked for originally, but it is not the potty piloting proposed in the Bill. Piloting individual voter registration or personal identifiers in one district council will tell us nothing. After all, it could be said that a successful pilot scheme has taken place already in Northern Ireland, which is a whole country.
	Regardless of party allegiance, many hon. Members will not be satisfied unless action is taken on individual voter registration and personal identifiers. Therefore, I   hope that the Minister agrees that the time has come for some movement on this important issue.

Anne Begg: I want to speak about some concerns that the organisation Scope has brought to my attention, and I look forward to the response from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who will answer the debate.
	Scope supports the idea of personal identifiers very strongly, but considers that the registration process, if carried out appropriately and correctly, could help disabled people exercise their right to vote. I shall come back to what Scope would like to happen with the piloting, but it recommends that registration forms should have enough space so that people can make clear their preferred format for any communication that they receive. In addition, the form should allow disabled people to set out their access needs if they are required to attend a polling station. Scope says that that would help registration officers in their forward planning for elections, as they would have a rough idea of how many people with disabilities any given polling station would have to cater for.
	However, Scope is worried that the registration forms could become too crowded and busy if all that information were to be included. It reports seeing some mock-ups of forms that might be used, but says that there is a concern that there may be insufficient space for identifiers. Moreover, the organisation says that the forms should use a reasonable print size—at least 12 point—so that people with a visual impairment can read them.
	Scope thinks that piloting is a good idea, but is keen that consideration be given to piloting both household and individual registration at the same time, to ascertain which option is more effective. That approach may deal with some of the problems raised on Second Reading and in today's debate, and settle the argument about which method would ensure that the largest number of people were registered.
	The Bill does not specify that the pilot schemes must be conducted in respect of household registration only, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can assure me that there is a possibility that individual registration could be piloted as well.
	Scope is also keen to ensure that personal identifiers are easily understood. The Opposition propose that national insurance numbers be used for that purpose, but Scope does not agree with that, as not everyone has a national insurance number, and the number itself is not the easiest thing to remember. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said that he knew his number, but I am afraid that I do not know mine. I think that a lot of people would struggle as well. Even so, most disabled organisations welcome the use of personal identifiers. Part of the reason is that the only identifier presently in use is a person's signature, and many disabled people find it very difficult or impossible to sign their names.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will assure the House that pilot schemes will be held for collecting individual identifiers using both the household registration form and the individual registration form. In that way, we will be able to see which approach is correct.

David Heath: This clause and these amendments are important because there is real concern about the potential for fraud in our electoral system.

Chris Ruane: rose—

David Heath: Before the hon. Gentleman starts giving us statistics, I hasten to say that I am talking about the potential for fraud in the system, and not the reality. The problem is especially severe in the context of postal voting, and there is an urgent need to address it.
	That urgency is not lost on Ministers, who understand that something must be done. It is a great shame, therefore, that they have rejected the Electoral Commission's clear proposals in respect of individual registration and personal identifiers. We have gone down this road before: the Government have previously rejected the Electoral Commission's views, and rued it later when their alternatives have been shown to be unworkable. That is why I believe that we need to take the commission's opinions in this matter seriously.
	I detect some confusion between individual registration and personal identifiers. The two are not identical, nor necessarily linked: we can have personal identifiers without individual registration, and individual registration without   personal identifiers. I believe that both are constituent parts of an appropriate system for preventing false registration and voting, but it is still possible to separate one from the other. For the moment, I shall set aside the question of individual registration and deal with personal identifiers, which are central to amendment No. 18.
	It has been accepted in the debate that we want to extend the franchise as far as possible. That means that we must get as many people to register as we can manage, but at the same time we have to prevent fraud. A spectrum of barriers and encouragements to registration has been considered, as has the Bill's place in that spectrum of potential solutions. Any personal identifier could be construed as a barrier of one sort or another. We have to determine whether a barrier could be surmounted easily and so would not reduce the registration level, or whether it would cause a significant reduction in the number of people wanting to register. I   contend that a signature is not a difficult barrier to   overcome. Most people, if asked, can contrive to provide a signature or identifying mark. If they cannot, it is unlikely that they will be able to complete a ballot paper successfully. So the requirement to provide a signature is not a barrier to registration, but it is a   personal identifier that allows the registration officer or presiding officer to do his job.
	Other personal details that are not difficult to provide could be used as identifiers—for example, date of birth. Some people may pretend not to know their date of birth, but I suspect that most people, if pushed, could come up with a consistent date of birth to use as a personal identifier.

Chris Ruane: The Queen has two.

David Heath: Yes, but she does not participate in the electoral system, so that is not a significant objection.
	Other possibilities for personal identifiers include the sort of thing that the average bank, building society or other financial institution ask people to provide before giving or receiving information over the telephone. Again, such information would not be difficult for most people to provide, but it would be a slightly higher barrier and might prove difficult for some individuals in some circumstances.

Andrew Love: Amendment No. 18 mentions the need to supply a national insurance number, but it would also require from an applicant
	"a statement of whether or not he has been resident in the United Kingdom for . . . the three-month period . . . and . . . any other address in the United Kingdom in respect of which he is . . . registered".
	The rationale for that appears to be that it reflects the provision in Northern Ireland. Is that a reasonable rationale or would it erect additional barriers to registration?

David Heath: I think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I said on Second Reading and knows that I think that it is too high a barrier. I am concerned about the amendment not because I do not share the view that we need a process of individual registration and personal identifiers, but because the personal identifiers that may have been appropriate for Northern Ireland are not necessarily those that we need in this country.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr.   Heald) suggested that it is a middle-class affectation not to know one's national insurance number. As an aspiring jobbing lawyer, he is of course not part of the middle classes and therefore does not have that problem. He knows his national insurance number because he sees it on his pay packet every week—

Oliver Heald: And I know my place.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman may well know his place, but many people cannot readily bring to mind their national insurance number. For example, many women in the ethnic minority community will never have used their national insurance number, are not familiar with it and would not be able to produce it. Given that they are a key part of the community that we seek to reach to increase registration, it would be perverse to put a barrier that they would find almost insurmountable in their way.
	There are other problems with using national insurance numbers. For a start, they are not unique. They are supposed to be unique, but the same number is sometimes unfortunately issued to more than one person. They also persist after death. That may be a macabre way to put it, but national insurance numbers still exist for people who are sadly no longer with us. Therefore, they might provide an opportunity for electoral fraud that did not previously exist.
	Nor are national insurance numbers entirely personal, because they are held in personnel departments or in employers' records. It would not be difficult for someone who wished to perpetrate a widespread fraud to collect a significant number of national insurance numbers by looking at employment records. For all those reasons, I   do not think that national insurance numbers are the right personal identifiers to use, but we need to use something.
	In a few moments, we shall debate pilot schemes. I am not convinced by them, but I do not want to pre-empt that debate. We need something to use now that goes a little further than the Government are presently prepared to accept, and we may wish to look closely at   the transitional arrangements that the Electoral Commission put before the Committee so ably chaired   by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) as proposals around which we can coalesce. It is better to arrive at a consensus than to proceed on a partisan basis. That solution may commend itself to the Government in due course. I would prefer us to reach that consensus in this elected Chamber, especially on a matter that relates to the conduct of elections, than for it to be reached in the non-elected House with only limited opportunity for us to discuss it. I ask the Minister to consider seriously and give us at least a glimmer of an indication whether the proposal from the Electoral Commission—the so-called transitional process, which was mentioned earlier—might be acceptable. If so, by far the best solution would be for the Government to put it into their own words and bring it forward as an amendment on Report. I have no doubt that it would receive support from both sides of the House. Otherwise, we would have to keep on arguing the toss about something on which we should be   able to reach a consensus, and that would be unfortunate.

Alan Beith: As well as the merits of the case put forward by the Electoral Commission for the proposal it has made in the past few days, there is a further reason for accepting it. The authority of the Electoral Commission is not well served if the Government repeatedly reject its recommendations, especially as in this case they follow reconsideration of objections to its first proposals. Given that we press on other countries the need for an authoritative electoral commission, it is incumbent on the Government to attach some authority to the one that we have.

David Heath: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. The Electoral Commission does not arrive at its conclusions in a capricious way. It thinks carefully about these matters, as it was set up to do. It is not just another group lobbying us for a particular cause; it is the body that the Government set up to consider electoral arrangements and advise them and this House. We should take what the Electoral Commission says seriously and if the Government are minded not to agree   with its proposals, they should have to provide extremely sound grounds for doing so. Nor should those grounds be partisan between the sides of the House.
	The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made several points that relate to the points that I made earlier about amendment No. 1. It is essential that we have proper arrangements for registering people with disabilities, in the same way as it is essential that we find ways for people to vote on the day or by post. Individual registration would assist that process. The Minister also needs to consider other issues, such as registration in nursing homes, which has not always been entirely appropriate. Those who run nursing homes have not always received the necessary encouragement to ensure that the people in their care are given the opportunity to register and vote. We need firmer guidelines on that aspect.
	There are issues about capacity, and although they are probably outwith the amendment, they need to be dealt with at some stage during the passage of the Bill. The hon. Lady's basic contention is absolutely right: we   must provide all sections of our community with   opportunities to be registered properly, while maintaining the integrity of the electoral system. I think that is what the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is trying to achieve through his amendment, although I disagree with him about the precise details, as he knows. Nevertheless, I applaud his intention and I hope that the Minister will respond appropriately.

Barbara Keeley: I want to talk about registration and personal identifiers. On Second Reading, I said that I   wholeheartedly agreed with the Minister's caution in not making a change to individual registration. That caution is the key thing. Today, as we did on Second Reading, we have debated the crisis in registration—that about 3 million to 4 million citizens are not included on our electoral registers. That is a serious matter.
	The Electoral Commission has pointed out that under-registration is high among certain groups. The figures from the commission's research are borne out when we check out such groups. One of the groups most under-represented on the register were people who had moved during the past two to three months. When I   checked with the Salford ERO, I was told that the areas with the most problems were those where there are six-month tenancies. The problem is serious. A large number of people—between 30 and 35 per cent.—in inner-city wards and polling districts are not registered.
	As I said earlier, we should not be raising additional barriers to electoral registration when a third of people in a polling district or an area may not be registered. We should be doing the opposite. As Members have already said, we should be encouraging people to register and targeting the groups most subject to under-registration. When prompted, people who had not registered said that it was a chore or time-consuming, or that they did not understand the process. Another important point, which relates to the amendments, is that people said that they were nervous of bureaucracy. All the proposals in the amendments would make that situation worse.
	We know that the change to personal identifiers in Northern Ireland, including national insurance numbers, caused a 10 per cent. drop in registration, so it is astonishing that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) talked about success and said that registration was high in Northern Ireland. I do not regard 91 or even 92 per cent. as high. When 89 per cent. of people in a community are disfranchised after an exercise to develop a better register, that is not acceptable.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Lady is continuing with a statement that the Electoral Commission has said is untrue. Sam Younger told the Committee that
	"there was a drop but not as big a . . . drop as . . . 10 per cent . . . While one cannot put an absolute figure on it, a goodly part of that was actually names that should not have been on the register anyway".

Barbara Keeley: We debated under and over-registration earlier; it changes from place to place. I was citing examples, borne out by the Electoral Commission research, which show that in some inner-city areas as many as 35, 37 or 38 per cent. of people are not registered. When, as the commission agrees, a total of 3 million to 4 million people are not registered, that is a crisis. The hon. Gentleman has just quoted evidence from the Select Committee session with the Electoral Commission last week and I shall quote from that, too. Sam Younger referred to the tension between participation and security, which is what we are debating, and said:
	"We do not feel national insurance numbers are something we should be asking people to provide at registration."
	The commission does not agree with a chunk of the amendment, and Sam Younger made that clear under our questioning. He sees the tension and the difficulty.
	I have two quotes from electoral officers in the north-west. I have used them before, but they are still appropriate. In evidence to the Joint Select Committee in 2004–05, the ERO for Trafford—now, sadly, a Conservative-run authority—said that whole areas of the electorate would not respond to requests for individual registration, particularly the under-registered groups. I know and have respect for that officer. He told me that, in his view, individual registration would be like a
	"throwback to the poll tax",
	as it would make registration numbers drop like a stone and not recover for many years.

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady and several of her colleagues referred to the crisis of under-registration. That may indeed be the case, but as I said on Second Reading, we are talking about extremely mechanical methods of fixing the problem. We may think that it is a crisis, but the millions of people Members say are not registered do not appear to agree. It is easy for them to solve by filling in a straightforward form. We are talking about barriers. If such a relatively simple thing as filling in a simple form and signing their name is such a problem for our fellow citizens that they are willing to give up voting, that is the problem we need to solve rather than tinkering around with mechanical details.

Barbara Keeley: People in some of the under-registered groups probably do not see registration as a priority. Research showed that some people admitted to being politically disengaged and some might be politically hostile. That is sad, but we all accept it. However, the MORI research identified groups of people who do not understand the process, who do not see the benefit of being registered or who are nervous of bureaucracy.

Chris Ruane: Does my hon. Friend think that the official Opposition might show greater concern about under-registration if the under-registered groups lived in Acacia gardens instead of Corporation street?

Barbara Keeley: I am sure that the Opposition would. I do not speak as someone who has a problem in her constituency. Worsley has between 92 and 94 per cent. registration, but my colleagues in neighbouring constituencies with more inner-city wards find after the annual canvass that the ERO is fighting to pull up registration from 64 per cent.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Lady will be aware that there has been much criticism of the Labour party over election fraud. In the areas that she is talking about where there is substantial under-registration, which councils have been indifferent over the years? Not Conservative councils, but Labour councils.

Barbara Keeley: I do not want to talk about postal voting pilots, but when I was in local government I   worked on several highly successful pilots—two in Trafford, which is now a Tory authority. We worked as an all-party group; there was all-party consensus and we held successful postal voting pilots—[Interruption.]

Derek Conway: Order. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr.   Heald) must let the hon. Lady speak.

Barbara Keeley: I said on Second Reading that part of the difficulty with postal voting ballots is that many authorities did not want them and dragged their feet. That is part of the difficulty, but in both Trafford and Salford I worked on incredibly successful postal voting pilots where there was no suggestion or suspicion of fraud. The question is really whether you want to do it, whether all parties want to do it and whether you work at it.
	Sam Younger does not believe in including national insurance numbers, so that is a dead duck. If the Electoral Commission does not support you, you should not be making that proposal—[Interruption.] Well, you cannot have it both ways.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady keeps referring to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) as you. She must not, as in fact she is referring to me.

Barbara Keeley: I am sorry, Mr. Conway.
	I cited two EROs who say that in their experience the proposals would make the whole situation worse. It is right that we proceed with caution and pilots are the way forward. From what has been said today, I am sure that there would be many volunteer local authorities and many Opposition Members would be desperate to hold pilots in their constituencies. Let them do so. I hope that their local authorities will work hard on that. By enabling the setting of performance standards for local authorities, so that they can work more effectively at building the register, we shall deal with the issues.

Clive Betts: I shall deal with the two key issues in the debate: first, the personal identifiers and the possible use of national insurance numbers; and secondly, whether people should fill in a household form or an individual form. It is important to try to work towards some sort of general agreement across the Chamber on those matters. On electoral law and the conduct of elections, if we could reach a consensus that would endure for a number of years, it would help the electorate to have stability.
	On national insurance numbers, I hope that the Conservative party might reflect again, for two reasons. First, national insurance numbers are not necessarily secure. That point has been well made. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that people could use duplicate numbers fraudulently. Indeed, I accept that such numbers are used in Northern Ireland, but people can sign a statement to say that they do not have one. If people can do that, what is the point of requiring them to give their number in the first place? That is a hole in the system. A few years ago, a Select Committee report identified how many extra national insurance numbers existed than people entitled to have them, so there are problems with that proposal. It will not greatly add to the security of the system.
	Secondly, the use of such numbers might be worth considering if it were not for the fact that that would be a disincentive to people registering. Some people will be   able to lay their hands very easily on their last salary or wage slip and read their national insurance number, but the point has been well made that some people cannot do so—for example, those who have been out of work for a period. Women will be particularly discriminated against because many of them will have taken time off to have a family, which is a fairly normal course of events. People who are unemployed probably cannot remember where they put their last pay slip. In the circumstances, if they must go and hunt for it the likelihood is that they will just say, "Oh, I'll get round to that in due course", and they will end up not filling in the registration form. I hope that hon. Members will accept that those difficulties can be a barrier to people who are   unemployed, to women and, probably, to people in the ethnic minority communities. Some of the very people who we want to encourage to register will be discriminated against. So I hope that that proposal will be reconsidered.
	If Opposition Members are really keen on people having a discrete, unique number to use on the forms and a secure form of electoral registration that is more efficient than anything else, they should opt for the national identity system with ID cards. People would then have a number to put on the form. Moreover, there would be a straight read across to give us a register that would be about 99.9 per cent. accurate. That shows another benefit of ID cards, but national insurance numbers would not eventually provide that security.

Alan Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that Irish citizens, for example, are entitled to vote in this country and would not be obliged to carry identity cards?

Clive Betts: I accept that there is no absolute read across, but the basics of a pretty accurate register would be provided. Certain things would have to be done to add people and perhaps to exclude others as well, but a firm base would be created on which to proceed.
	I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said about whether there should be a household form or an individual form. We need not necessarily have one sort of form or the other. Indeed, we do not have one or the other now, do we? The canvass goes out using a household form, but if people apply to register during the year, they apply on an individual form. Both systems operate. I accept that that can get a bit confusing, but I   am with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in spirit about individual registration. Ultimately, I think that we may get that system, but it would be very difficult to move the whole step at this stage.
	I do not know whether the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has tried to address some of   those practical problems. However, given the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) that we discussed in the first group, the Opposition accept that there are people on the register who should not be there, that some people registered at certain households may not live there, and that there are houses where no one is registered. So how do we decide how many individual forms to send to those houses?
	If no one is registered at a house, do we send one, two or three forms? What happens with a house in multiple occupation? It is all right to say that forms will be sent to the people whom we think live in a certain place, but if those people are not there because they are last year's students, rather than this year's students, how do we know the number? Does the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire favour sending individual registration forms around the system like confetti, when he is arguing that we should have a more secure system that stops people registering if they are not entitled to register?
	Those practical problems need to be thought through, but we might get such a system in the end. When we develop a much more accurate registration base and when we start to use data from different sources, we can then write to people, as is done in Australia, on the basis of the information held by the Post Office, the utilities, the college or the driving licence people to say that there has been a change in circumstances at an address and that we understand that so-and-so is living there now. We could send the registration form to the individual whom the registration officer—or the Electoral Commission in Australia—is told now lives at that address. That is how individual registration could build a completely new system, but that would be difficult under the current arrangements when we have an inaccurate register and do not know to whom we are sending the forms.
	Again, I return to the fact that there may be a case for both systems. I want to address a practical problem. I   listened to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said about registration officers being encouraged to go out into the community and knock on doors as part of the existing arrangements. If that sort of canvassing is done, I hope that the officers go with both forms. If they find the head of household in, I hope that they get that person to register everyone at the address while they are there. If they knock on the door and the head of household is not there, I hope that they have taken some individual registration forms so that they can at least register those people who are present and get them signed up on the spot.

Jonathan Djanogly: In some ways, the hon. Gentleman has answered his own question—ultimately, the canvassing needs to go ahead—but what about a university hall of residence, for instance, where foreign students have been registered and students are moving in and out without being taken off the register? What would he do in that situation? How could that be dealt with other than by canvassing?

Clive Betts: Clearly, the university must provide information about who is resident in those halls. That is simple to do—some universities do it and some do not. That is why I am in favour of having a legislative requirement for certain bodies to provide the electoral registration officer with information or for the officer to be able to gain access to that information. We would then have national standards—we will come to them later—that require registration officers to behave in a certain way when they receive information that people's circumstances have changed or so that they know what do to if a form is not sent back.
	Different registration officers deal with those situations differently. Some officers keep people on the register and some do not. Some officers take them off after one year, and others after two years if they do not have corresponding evidence from council tax documents that those people still live at the address. We must deal with those approaches by laying down national standards. However, we are talking about the forms and whether we need one form for the whole house or a form for each individual. The reality is that we have a mix at present. We will eventually move to individual registration as we put in place all the other arrangements, but in the meantime, while we are conducting the canvass, I hope that we use both sets of forms to try to ensure that when we knock on the door and find someone in, we get the maximum amount of information for registration purposes that we can.

David Cairns: We have had an extremely useful and enlightening debate. It has been our first canter around issues regarding individual registration, the forms for such registration and the nature of piloting, with which I will deal in a moment. First, however, I want to respond to several specific points made during the debate.
	I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that we need a campaign to increase the numbers on the register. The entire purpose of the two-and-a-half-hour debate that we had earlier was to set out the basic parameters of that campaign. At a later stage, we will talk about the performance standards to which we will expect electoral registration officers to perform. We are thus in agreement about the   need for such a campaign, and I welcomed the commitment that he gave.
	The hon. Gentleman said that everyone who has studied the matter has concluded that individual registration will improve security without having an impact on numbers on the register. However, not everyone agrees with that. Several hon. Members who spoke, the EROs who contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), and my electoral registration officer, Mr. Edward Duffy from Renfrewshire valuation joint board, certainly do not agree. Mr. Duffy wrote me a letter last week that said:
	"Of course having identified residents, there still remains the problem of trying to persuade them to complete and return the canvass form. This is likely to become more of a problem with the requirement to collect signatures and dates of birth."
	That view of an experienced registration officer is echoed by registration officers throughout the country. It is not just Labour Members who are saying that collecting information from people on individual or household forms might impact negatively on the register. That is why we propose to follow the route of piloting, which we will discuss in more detail during our consideration of the next set of amendments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) raised the legitimate concerns that have been expressed by Scope, Sense, the Royal National Institute of the Blind and other bodies about the design of any such form. The Department has not produced any mock-up forms, so I am not sure of the provenance of the forms to which she refers. We will not create any such mock-up forms or proceed on the matter without consulting the organisations to which she rightly drew attention. We give a firm commitment that if the process moves forward—the Bill allows for individual identifiers—we will consult those organisations and others with a vested interest in ensuring that we get the design of the forms right. My hon. Friend also said that several of those organisations have reservations about the requirement on national insurance numbers that is proposed in amendment No. 18, for reasons of complexity.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr.   Heath) rightly said that there was a need to take action on fraud. He also acknowledged, graciously, that we are taking such action. The new fraud offences regarding both registration and applications for a postal vote have tough sanctions. We are not sanguine about fraud—there will be zero tolerance of it, as it has been said—and we are proceeding with tough new measures.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the requirement to give a signature and date of birth was not a difficult barrier, but that is a point of contention. My electoral registration officer thinks that it could well be a barrier, as do the registration officers of the Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and   Peckham (Ms Harman), and my hon. Friend the   Member for Worsley. There is no consensus that the measure would not have the undesired consequence of increasing what have been described as the catastrophic drops on the register.
	The hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for North-East Hertfordshire talked about the so-called transitional arrangement proposals put forward by Sam   Younger. We must remember that Mr. Younger was setting out a fallback position, in a sense, because he does not want the pilots. We are thus effectively having this discussion the wrong way round because we should talk about the pilots first.
	I have read the letter that Mr. Younger sent to my right hon., learned and noble Friend the Secretary of State, which I noticed was faxed to him at 6 pm on Friday evening. The letter makes serious suggestions, so the proposal clearly must be studied with a view to its possible ramifications. A prima facie reading of the letter leads me to ask two questions about the proposal. If it will be voluntary to provide such information on the form, will that provide the increased security that people want? Secondly, would it not add to the confusion surrounding the forms if there was a space for people to provide their dates of birth and signatures, but they did not have to fill them in if they did not want to? People would say, "If I don't fill this in, will I be somehow worse off than if I do?" We could explain to them that they would not be worse off because it would be voluntary to provide the information, but that would add to the confusion about which my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley spoke when she cited the MORI polls. People find such forms confusing enough as it is, without adding another layer of possible confusion. However, I   have made only a prima facie reading of the proposal. We will give it greater study, but I am not immediately attracted to it.

Alan Beith: An answer to the Minister's first question is that if people do not provide a signature, they will not get a postal vote. As the greatest concern about fraud relates to postal voting, the proposal would address that specific problem, although it would not deal with wider security problems that must be addressed in other ways.

David Cairns: We are examining fraud in postal vote applications. I accept that one has to sign for a postal vote application. However, at the time at which people filled in the form to go on to the electoral register, they might not want a postal vote. They might decide later that they want such a vote. We would be introducing a further hurdle at a late stage if we said to people, "Sorry, you can't get a postal vote because you didn't sign the form when you filled it in because that was optional." I   understand the logic behind the suggestion as a default position in opposition to pilots, but it would send a slightly mixed message. I have already mentioned the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley, who said that we were right to be cautious. She used the experience of her own electoral registration officer, just as I used the experience of my ERO, to demonstrate that there is no consensus. My   hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) spoke about the problem of using national insurance numbers as well as serious practical issues. If individual forms are sent to houses in multiple occupation on the basis of how many people lived at the address in previous years, the number of forms delivered could far exceed the number of residents, which opens the door to more fraud.
	As our debate has demonstrated, there is no consensus about the way in which we should proceed. Some people are highly sceptical about individual registration, predicting catastrophic drops, but others are in favour of it. However, there are differences among its supporters. The Liberal Democrats want individual registration to be rolled out across the country in one go, but they do not want national insurance numbers to be used. The Conservatives want individual registration, but they insist on the use of national insurance numbers. In the absence of consensus, the Government's approach is pragmatic and practical. On Second Reading, I said that the measure includes
	"three interlocking principles: access to voting for all who are entitled, participation by all who wish to participate and fairness for all through zero tolerance of fraud and intimidation. None of those principles is optional.—[Official Report, 25 October 2005; Vol. 438, c. 268.]
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State referred to those principles as the three legs of a stool. Our concerns about individual registration and national insurance numbers stem from the negative impact that could have on the first of those three legs.

David Heath: I fear that the Minister may inadvertently have misrepresented our position. We have not said that we want individual registration to be rolled out across the country in one go. We want the Government's own personal identifier scheme to be rolled out across the country in one go, because that is a sine qua non for ensuring that postal voting at the next election is fraud-free.

David Cairns: I apologise if I inadvertently mischaracterised the hon. Gentleman's argument. If anything, however, his intervention adds to the lack of consensus rather than clarifies the position.
	As has been said, the Electoral Commission found that up to 3.5 million people in England and Wales and an unknown number in Scotland cannot vote in elections because they are not registered. Individual registration and the use of national insurance numbers could make that situation worse. There has been disagreement about the position in Northern Ireland, but when individual registration was introduced there, registration levels dropped. In one Belfast ward, registration dropped from an already low 41 per cent. to just 23 per cent. Some hon. Members argued that registration levels were 150 per cent. across the Province and dropped to 90 per cent., but that Belfast ward, albeit an extreme example, shows that there was a catastrophic drop from an already low starting base. However, individual registration has benefits for the security of postal voting, particularly through the collection of   personal identifiers such as a signature and date of birth. We have therefore provided in the Bill for the collection of personal identifiers, but to test and evaluate their impact on registration levels we intend to proceed through a programme of pilots that we shall discuss in relation to a later group of amendments. Proceeding in   that way will ensure that our approach is evidence-based and will prevent us from introducing policies that serve one leg of the stool to the detriment of another.
	Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 seek to extend the full Northern Ireland individual registration system to Great Britain, including inter alia the use of national insurance numbers. My hon. Friend the Member for   Edmonton (Mr. Love) drew the attention of the Committee to the Northern Ireland provision for three-month residency. That provision was introduced because it was feared that once an election was announced, residents of the Republic of Ireland might cross the border and register in constituencies in the north. Because Northern Ireland citizens can vote in UK elections they could then take part in such elections. There is probably consensus that that is unlikely to   happen.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is shrugging his shoulders, but it would be far-fetched to believe that there were hordes of people in the Republic of Ireland waiting to come over here so that they can take part in our elections. That scenario, however, is dealt with in the amendment.
	A controversial provision in amendment No. 18 deals with national insurance numbers. In Northern Ireland, national insurance numbers are used to share data with the Department for Work and Pensions. That process allows external confirmation of a person's identity and   is useful in relation to security. It is possible, however, because Northern Ireland is relatively small—1.1 million electors—and has a centrally held register.
	By contrast, Great Britain has around 43 million electors and more than 400 locally held registers. The infrastructure is therefore simply not in place for the   Northern Ireland-style use of national insurance numbers to be extended to Great Britain at this time. In that context, we believe that the collection of national insurance numbers would add nothing to security and simply deter people from registering to vote. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has pointed out, many people do not know their national insurance number, and we believe that they would not take the extra step of discovering it in order to register.
	When we have the co-ordinated online record of electors, which we will discuss later in Committee, we could use a national insurance system in Great Britain as in Northern Ireland. The Bill allows for such a system to be added both in pilots and at roll-out at a later date via an affirmative order, and the provision is included in clause 14.
	In short, amendments Nos. 18 and 20 would introduce a policy which, although it is not currently appropriate, could be of use in the future. However, since the Bill already provides for that possibility, and since the time is not right for its implementation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Oliver Heald: I congratulate the Minister's civil servants on the lines of argument that they have managed to construct for him, because the case is shilly-shallying and pathetic, so constructing any argument at all was a major achievement. I shall give Ministers longer to consider the matter, because the issue is important. It is urgent that we tackle postal-voting fraud, and what has been suggested so far is not adequate. The pilots are completely unacceptable, and it is time Ministers came up with something better—the Electoral Commission has come up with some ideas.
	It is all well and good for the Minister to say, "Give way on important points", but what movement have we seen so far? The problem is urgent, and all Ministers have come up with are pathetic, potty, little pilots, which have already been tried out in a country—Northern Ireland. It will not do, and we need something better from Ministers. We shall return to the subject, when we hope that Ministers will do better. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15
	 — 
	Personal identifiers: piloting

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 15, page 14, line 17, leave out subsection (1).

The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 5, in page 14, line 26, leave out from 'to' to end of line and insert—
	   'one or more electoral regions as defined for the purposes of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 (c.24)'.
	Amendment No. 6, in page 15, line 1, leave out subsections (10) and (11).
	Amendment No. 7, in clause 16, page 15, line 40, leave out
	'local authority in response to whose proposal'
	and insert
	'local authorities within the region or regions in which'.
	Amendment No. 8, in clause 16, page 15, line 43, leave out
	'local authority in response to whose proposal'
	and insert
	'local authorities within the region or regions in which'.
	Amendment No. 9, in clause 16, page 16, line 1, leave out first 'The' and insert 'Each'.
	New clause 5—personal identifiers: supplemental provisions—
	'Sections 13 and 14 shall not be brought into force otherwise than for the purposes of an order made under section 15.'.

David Heath: We move on to the vexed question of pilots, which the Government have given rather a bad name. Pilots are the Government-speak equivalent of mañana: if one does not want to do something quickly, one runs pilots, pilots and more pilots, after which one can assess the pilots for a while, review the assessment and then run more pilots. However, the alternative is to roll out the whole scheme within a few weeks of installing the pilot scheme without any assessment of the evidence. Those are not appropriate ways of dealing with what many commentators have described as a matter of some urgency, particularly in the case of postal votes.
	I have already conceded the point that individual registration raises some issues, and we must examine the matter carefully. My preference is for an individual voter registration scheme, which is a view echoed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who sees that as the direction in which we should be going, but also recognises the practical difficulties along the way.
	I have given the Government credit for introducing new offences in the Bill in order to tighten up on fraud. If we are to make those offences bite, however, other than making threats that are never brought to court, we must provide the means by which returning officers and registration officers can detect fraud, otherwise we are simply rattling sabres without any expectation of success. That is particularly the case in terms of postal voting fraud, which we know has occurred because there have been successful court cases. We heard quoted on Second Reading what the learned judge in one such case said about the inadequacy of the current systems. If we accept the Government's proposed pilot scheme, we will not have these precautions in place by the time of the next general election. If that happens, we should hang our heads in shame, because this House will have failed in its primary duty of ensuring the integrity of our electoral system. We need an alternative to the Government's proposals.
	When he was responding to the previous group of amendments, the Minister suggested—although he recanted when I intervened on him—that I had said that a full system of individual registration and personal identifiers should be rolled out across the country at a single stroke. I have not said that. I have said that the Government's scheme, which they have identified as being appropriate in the pilot areas, is appropriate across the country because it is a minimal scheme with very little likelihood of having a significant effect. If it were to have a significant effect, we have a fall-back position, which has already been described by the Electoral Commission.
	The Government were wrong to suggest pilots in the first instance. People in the Whitehall Departments should be taken away and given some elementary scientific training as to how to conduct a controlled experiment. Too often, we have pilots that tell us practically nothing, and this is a case in point. The Government propose that local authorities opt in by offering the opportunity to run pilots in their local authority area. That gives us a self-selecting group of local authorities, no control over the kinds of authorities that are being used because they are self-selecting, and, with no control authority, no ability to make proper comparisons of what is happening. What is observed in the experimental conditions might be entirely random instead of helpful in ascertaining any sort of trend.
	If the Government are insistent about going ahead with pilots, the very least that we can expect is that they identify a region and run the registration experiment across it. That would mean, first, that they have a suitable size of response in order to get meaningful results; secondly, that they can compare one region with a similar region, thereby providing the control that I   suggest; and thirdly, that they have sufficient data to recommend changes in the future. None of that is accomplished by the Government's proposed pilot scheme.
	There is a better solution. The Government do not propose to go as far as the Northern Ireland experiment because—I agree with them on this—they want not to use the Northern Ireland system of personal identifiers, which includes the national insurance number, but a basic version based on a signature and date of birth. That is not such a drastic step as suggesting a   catastrophic reduction in registration but it is the   minimum required to maintain the integrity of the voting system, especially for postal votes. Amendment No. 4 would set aside the concept of the pilot and go for a change in the law to provide basic protection.
	Later amendments propose an alternative sort of pilot, which would be based on a larger area—an electoral region. Of course, we held such a pilot for the   European parliamentary elections because that was believed to be appropriate. It was not based on one region—we had to go much further and half of England was used for the experiment because the Department took a completely different view of what was appropriate then. We had the Dane law, which covered an experimental area rather than a few local authorities dotted around the country.
	Let me consider the so-called transitional arrangement that the Electoral Commission proposed. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) is not in her place, because she so strongly advocated never disagreeing with the Electoral Commission's proposals. She suggested that it would be outrageous to disagree with them and I should therefore have liked her to be here to endorse my comments. The Electoral Commission has made it clear that it does not agree with the Government about the piloting approach. I have a letter from Sam Younger that outlines the Electoral Commission's reasons for that. I   received the letter at 6.15—the Minister obviously received it first, which is right and proper.
	The Electoral Commission has proposed a transitional approach. It does not give me everything that I want—it is a compromise—but its great merit is that it does two things. It enables the Government to behave cautiously, as they say they want to do on the introduction of the overall arrangements and towards the normal voting procedure, but it ensures that minimum standards for postal votes are in place long   before the next general election. That meets the Government's objection to my position and my objection to theirs. That is a strong place to start. The Under-Secretary shakes his head. He obviously has a preconceived view that he will not find the approach acceptable. That is a shame because, on Report, it might form the basis on which we wish to proceed. If we cannot do that, the measure will, unfortunately, go to a non-elected House for arbitration.

Clive Betts: I am struggling a little with the hon. Gentleman's fall-back position. It appears that he does   not object to the principle of pilots but simply to the areas in which they will take place. He argues that such an area should be a Government region, for example, the constituencies for European parliamentary elections. That would preclude the method that we use for conducting pilots on other matters such as electronic voting, whereby some wards in a local authority area are designated for the pilot and others are not. One can then compare what happened in the same local authority area. The hon. Gentleman would prevent such pilots from being conducted for those purposes, yet they might lead to some interesting results.

David Heath: All sorts of things might lead to interesting results. However, I see no inconsistency between saying that I do not agree with a piloting approach but also that, if there is to be one, it needs to be on a quantum of local authorities that is sufficiently large to produce results, instead of the hotch-potch approach that has been used previously. Although we had some "interesting"—to use the hon. Gentleman's word—experiments on novel voting methods, what have we learned from them? We learned precious little   because we had insufficient material to make a conclusive determination about the way in which we would like to progress. The end result was an election that inspired the least confidence of any in living memory. That is the environment in which we are addressing the issues in the Bill.

Clive Betts: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. We had some interesting pilots in Sheffield on electronic voting, in which some wards had electronic voting and others did not. We learned that having electronic voting made virtually no difference to voter turnout, so the idea that it was going to provide some kind of panacea to get thousands more people to vote proved not to be the case. So pilots can prove that things will not work, as well as proving that they will. That is the idea of a pilot, and we should set out with an open mind as to what the result will be.

David Heath: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We should set out with an open mind. We had a similar situation with electronic voting in south Somerset. It was not the preferred voting method of the people there; more were interested in personal voting. However, that is an aside, because we are not talking about a revolutionary change to what the Government are proposing. We are simply talking about providing a signature and a date of birth. I really cannot get my head around the idea that that is such a difficult thing for people to provide in order to ascertain that they are who they say they are for the purpose of electoral registration. People sign on the dotted line every day for things that they wish to receive. They might be asked to sign when the postman comes. They do not say, "Oh, no, Mr. Postman, I cannot sign to receive this package. It is too difficult." They say, "Of course I will." They sign, and they receive their package, or whatever.
	This proposal involves a basic, elementary approach, and we are making far too much of an issue of it. We are making it an obstacle to registration, which it simply is not. It involves a basic precaution to ensure that, the next time we have an election, we do not have the sort of headlines that we had after the last one, with electoral courts in session and people being accused and convicted of electoral fraud, simply because our returning officers and registration officers do not have the mechanisms to prevent that fraud from happening. That is the responsibility of the House and of the Government, and that is why I have tabled these amendments today.

Oliver Heald: I should like to start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Not to tackle the public perception of postal voting fraud and the inaccuracy of the registers would be a recipe for disaster. We talk a good deal in the House about trying to connect with the public, and about public confidence in the voting system. We are right to do so, because there is a disconnection there, and to fail to tackle a problem of such importance to this place would be wrong. The serial piloting approach is a hopeless and pathetic response to it. This is an urgent problem and it needs urgent action.
	Everyone will know by now that I support the tried and tested system in Northern Ireland. It has created security and there are still high levels of registration there. However, I am prepared to consider measures such as those proposed by the Electoral Commission for a transitional approach. The proposal that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has come up with in amendment No. 4 is worthy of support because it does not involve a potty pilot. It involves rolling out personal identifiers, which will provide real protection, and it involves doing so now.

Anne Begg: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to reach out and involve as many people as possible in voting, why on earth has he tabled amendment No. 23, which rules out all modern types of voting such as electronic voting, telephone voting and text message voting? Surely that amendment contradicts what he has just said.

Oliver Heald: I am sure you would be very tough on me, Mr. Conway, if I strayed too far down that road, because it relates to the next group of amendments, although I will refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts): when pilots involving electronic voting and the like were tried, they had no discernible effect on turnout. That has influenced me, as have my concerns about fraud, which I will refer to later, if I may.
	The point I want to make is that it is right to be constructive when the problem is so important. I am prepared to be constructive, as is my party, so we will support amendment No. 4. I do not agree with the regional approach, because piloting is not the answer. A national approach is needed, and it is needed now.

Anne Begg: I sat through all the debate on Second Reading, and I have sat through a large chunk of the   debate today. If any evidence were needed as to why   we have to have a pilot, it has been provided by those debates. There has been a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing among Members on both sides of the Committee over whether one system will work and another will not; whether there should be household or individual registration; what the identifiers should be—for example, national insurance numbers; and whether those identifiers will act as barriers.
	That is exactly why we need a pilot. We need to find out what does and does not work, and whether it is possible—particularly in terms of the personal identifiers—to give a choice. Despite what the hon.   Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) says, some people find signing their name difficult, particularly in a consistent way. I give the example of my father, who has recently lost his eyesight. He is finding it extremely difficult to continue to sign his name in the way that he previously did with ease.

David Heath: Provision for setting aside the personal identifier in such circumstances has already been made by the Government, who foresaw the problem. My amendment would not change that; it would simply introduce the provision across the country rather than in some parts of it.

Anne Begg: But earlier the hon. Gentleman described exactly what the barriers are. Which personal identifiers will be easiest? That is probably where we are looking to pilot. Should we use date of birth? I would go along with that; it is probably an easy identifier. Should we use a signature? Most certainly it would be easy for most people, but we might use the mother's maiden name or a range of other things that will be easier for an individual to remember than things that we might think are easy to remember. That is why I said in a previous intervention that using the national insurance number might be difficult. Remember, the purpose of this measure is to encourage more and more people to register. For people with a learning disability, for instance, something we have not thought of might be an easier personal identifier than the ones we have come up with.
	I also referred earlier to the point made by Scope, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Royal National Institute of the Blind, as well as other disabled organisations: whether it would be more successful to   have individual registration with identifiers or household registration, also with identifiers; whether distributing the forms by household would make them too complex, too difficult to read and too difficult to access; and whether using an individual form would lead to a huge drop in the number of people who register. Nothing I have heard during our debates makes me think that we have the answers to those questions, which is why we need a pilot.
	On Second Reading, I also made a plea for consistency across the different electoral regions. I   might seem to be contradicting myself, but I think that we need pilots to find out what is easy and what is accessible. Having been registered in more than one electoral district—indeed, for a short time I was registered in three—I know that the variety of information and the differences between information that one receives in different areas can make it either easier or more difficult to work out how to register and what the form says.
	I have puzzled over the exact meaning of a number of   forms, especially in relation to declaration of citizenship, as it is not always clear whether that is mandatory. In one electoral register, one must declare one's nationality, while in my home register in Aberdeen, one does not have to do so. There is still confusion about exactly what is needed, and that is why the Government are right to pursue pilots. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the pilots must ultimately come up with a final solution. I hope that, as a result of the pilots, we will find out what works, what does not work, what is easy, what is accessible, and above all, what leads to security of poll and cuts out fraud to make sure that everyone has confidence in the electoral system.

Mark Harper: To pick up the point about pilots, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that we seem already to have had a pilot of sorts in Northern Ireland, from which we   learnt some things. We should pay attention to the Electoral Commission, which recognised that there were some negative effects on registration, and advised that to tackle that we should couple a move to individual registration with other measures such as campaigning and publicity work.
	I am not sure how far forward the running of pilots will take us. One of two things will happen. The use of basic identifiers such as a signature and date of birth will not show a significant drop, which I am not convinced will satisfy some Labour Members—who have already seen examples of a drop in Northern Ireland—that there will not be a problem in rolling that out across the country. Alternatively, it will show a significant drop, but the reasons for that, and the reasons why there are such barriers, will not necessarily be clear.
	In relation to the reasons why people do not register, the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) stated in its report on page 26:
	"Most of the figures quoted are from data collected in 1991."
	It mentioned that the Government were conducting
	."
	Will the Minister tell the Committee what progress has been made on that, and whether that information will be available? Clearly, if some of what seem to be relatively straightforward identifiers act as significant barriers, we need to know why they are acting as barriers. I do not see how we can get much more straightforward identifiers than signature and date of birth for most people. If the introduction of such identifiers causes a massive drop in registration, I am not sure what other sorts of identifiers would not have a similar effect. We therefore need to be clear about why a drop in registration has been caused.
	If a signature and date of birth is that off-putting, that either reflects levels of education among some of the groups who are not registering to vote, or, as I have said previously, the extent to which they could care less about voting. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) that for some individuals a signature might be a problem, and the Bill provides for that, but if most people are so disinterested in voting that asking them to sign a piece of paper and give their date of birth will cause a catastrophic drop in registration—as some Labour Members were saying—it strikes me that we have a more serious problem with voting and democracy in this country than is recognised.
	If the Minister could answer my key question about some of the research on barriers to voting, that would be helpful.

Chris Ruane: Before I move on to new clause 5, I want to pick up a few points mentioned by other hon. Members.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr.   Heath) said that he would like to see a pilot in one region. We have already had that—that region was Northern Ireland—and we have seen the results. He said that he could not get his head round the idea that people are not prepared just to sign their name and give their date of birth. The hon. Gentleman cannot get his head around that notion. He is a well-balanced Liberal Democrat, a professional politician. Obviously, he sees no problem. If he lived in a house of multiple occupation, if he were unemployed or on the minimum wage or if he were part of an ethnic minority—obviously he is not—perhaps he would see that there are problems. There are problems for those people who are not registering under the current system. Any other measure that is put in their way will act as a disincentive to register.
	We have learned the lessons from Northern Ireland, where the figure went down to 84 per cent. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) said that we needed a registration campaign in conjunction with advertising, but that was undertaken in Northern Ireland. The figure went from 86 per cent. up to—according to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)—92 per cent, a figure with which he said he was satisfied. I certainly am not. I do not represent Northern Ireland, but I am a democrat and I do not believe that democracy should be functioning on the basis of 92 per cent. of the population being registered. If we want an efficient and effective democracy with all sectors of society catered for, we need 100 per cent. registration.
	I also wanted to speak about the timing of any pilots, which is key. I would urge the Minister not to start any pilot in any area of the UK until we have the 3.5 million to 4 million missing people on the register. If pilots go ahead, we should have it at that point. The people missing from the register are the most sensitive to any change. If we introduce pilots before they are on the register, we will not get a true reflection of the impact.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the level of registration in Northern Ireland at great length and a number of times. What is the level in his own constituency?

Chris Ruane: In 1997, there 55,000 voters, which went down to 48,000. I raised the issue in the House two or three years ago and, lo and behold, an extra 2,000 to 3,000 voters were put on the register. Currently the figure stands at about 52,000 electors, 3,000 down on 1997. In the last 10 years, the population of my county—my constituency makes up 65 per cent. of my county—has gone up by 4 per cent., while registration has gone down by about 10 per cent.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way. What I was looking for was the percentage of those eligible to vote in his constituency who are on the electoral register.

Chris Ruane: Whatever the percentage is, it will be a lot worse—[Interruption.] I think that I have given enough statistics about my constituency and I hope that hon. Members have statistics of their own. I have also supplied every Labour MP with their percentage fall since 1997 for 2001 and 2004. I have also cross-referenced that with the census database and supplied that information. I have given enough information about voting populations in my constituency and, indeed, 300 or 400 other constituencies.
	New clause 5 would ensure that this House was properly consulted, through primary legislation, before any national scheme for national identifiers was rolled out as a result of the pilots. The very fact that we are debating these matters on the Floor of the House gives an indication of how important we feel this Bill is. Important changes that could result from a pilot scheme should not go through on the nod but should be properly and fully debated in this House. I oppose any measures that would further reduce the size of the electorate in my constituency and those of other Members. We must be very careful about the way in which we implement pilot schemes involving personal identifiers and signatures, and even more careful when deciding what will happen when the schemes have run their course.
	The Bill had its genesis in the furore and fallout from a number of high-profile postal-ballot fraud cases during the 2004 local elections. There was wall-to-wall coverage of those cases on television and radio, and in the press. The Government, being a listening Government, decided to act on the concern. The initial thrust of that action was to secure the votes. When the Government listened further, especially to representations from Labour Members on the other issue, widening participation, they realised that it was a question not just of security but of ensuring that people were on the register.
	I believe that, since the Bill's inception, its balance has been evened out. I believe that there has been a trade-off between securing the vote and widening participation. Pilots will show us what impact additional security initiatives will have on voter registration and participation. As I have said, my main concern is the widening of participation. I would oppose an automatic roll-out as a result of any pilot studies that might be undertaken.
	Members may be tired of hearing a statistic that I   have already mentioned, but I think it essential to repeat it until people know the true figures. According to the Electoral Commission, between 3.5 million and 4 million people are missing from the electoral register under the current rules. Had the Government listened to the press, had they listened to the Opposition and, dare I say, had they listened initially to the Electoral Commission, we would be implementing a system that could lead to a drop of a further 10 per cent. in the number of electoral registrations if the Northern Ireland pattern were repeated. Given an electorate of 44 million, that could constitute 4.5 million missing voters. There could have been a total of 8.5 million missing voters had Labour Members not intervened.
	Some people are concerned about security. Let me put the matter into perspective. Replies to a parliamentary question that I tabled about postal-ballot fraud suggested that there were no prosecutions in the case of general elections, and only one or two per year in the case of local elections. That is one or two too many, but I feel that the greater evil is represented by a potential 8.5 million voters missing from the register. I realise that pilot schemes were introduced in an attempt to compromise, but I think that the results should be carefully monitored. Each and every one of us should have an opportunity to comment. If there is cause for concern, primary legislation should be initiated, and should be fully debated in the Chamber before any permanent national changes are made. I do not want such legislation to go through on the nod.
	Nothing is so precious to a Member of Parliament as his boundaries and the size of his electorate. To me, as a Labour Member, size does matter: the bigger the better. If any changes made in my constituency or others would have a negative impact on an already diminished electorate, I want a say in them. As a democrat, I believe that if changes that might affect 8.5 million of the most disadvantaged people in society are to be pursued, they are worthy of a debate, a vote and primary legislation.

David Cairns: The debate is yet further evidence of the lack of consensus on individual registration and personal identifiers. Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 would put pilots of personal identifiers on a compulsory and regional basis. New clause 5, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said, would prevent the rolling out of personal identifiers on a permanent and nationwide basis without further primary legislation.
	Let me deal first with amendments Nos. 4 to 9. The Government believe that, when a new system is tested, there is a balance to be struck between ensuring that it is tested on a large enough scale for the results to be meaningful and not taking unnecessary risks. Members will be aware that, for previous electoral pilots, we initially conducted tests at voluntary and local level. When we were confident that the system was ready to be used more widely, we scaled it up. What we have not done is to move to a regional scale without being clear that the benefits outweigh the risks.
	The potential benefit of personal identifiers is an increase in the security of the electoral process. We are doing much to address this issue and personal identifiers may help us to do more. There is a risk of a significant drop in the number of people registered to vote. As we have heard repeatedly, in excess of 3.5 million people already cannot vote because they are not registered and we do not intend to exacerbate the problem.
	Through pilots, we hope to measure the impact of identifiers in terms of both benefits and risks. We believe that a voluntary and local scheme will allow us to do that effectively. In our view, a compulsory regional scheme would attract an unacceptable level of risk, while not providing significantly more information about how the new system would operate.

Mark Harper: If voluntary pilot schemes are to rely on local authorities coming forward, how can we ensure that such schemes are piloted in regions where there are significant numbers of people who are not registered? In order to tackle some of the issues that we have discussed today, we need to pilot areas where significant numbers are not registered. Moreover, if we discover that there are barriers and a drop in registration occurs, what are we going to do to find out why?

David Cairns: Those are two perfectly valid questions and I am literally just about to address them in turn.
	I was about to say that it might be useful at this stage if I gave more detail on how we intend to take the pilots forward. We believe that they should last for at least two   years, and that shorter tests would not be sufficient to provide the evidence that we need to make a decision on rolling out. We intend to create one generic scheme—in consultation with the Electoral Commission and volunteer local authorities—and to pilot this same scheme across a variety of areas. In this way, we will be able to test the impact of personal identifiers simply, without the confusion that would be caused if we tested a variety of slightly different schemes.
	In selecting local authorities, we will ensure that local elected representatives are consulted. My briefing note says that there will be no question of a Member of Parliament being taken by surprise by a pilot in their area. That rather brings to mind the image of a British Airways captain leaping out on us from a darkened doorway, but the point is made.
	In response to the argument that regional pilots would be preferable because they encompass areas with different social and demographic profiles—the point alluded to by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr.   Harper)—we will seek to hold our local pilots in a wide variety of areas with different make-ups. The Office for National Statistics has grouped local authorities into seven classifications, some geographical and others more widespread. They are London centre, London suburbs, prospering UK, coastal and countryside, cities and services, and mining and manufacturing. There are   also a number of sub-groups. We will seek to pilot in areas in each of these classifications in order to learn   lessons from different areas with differing circumstances.
	We have not yet issued a prospectus seeking volunteers, but we intend to do so shortly. Even in the absence of such a prospectus, a number of local authorities have already informally expressed an interest in piloting. I therefore foresee no problem in gaining enough varied volunteer local authorities to carry out a full and thorough test of the new system.
	I mentioned earlier that I felt that the risks of regional registration pilots were too high. Let me explain why. The smallest UK electoral region is the north-east, which has some 2 million electors; the largest is the south-east, which has approximately 6 million. At the   top end, a pilot covering two or three regions could cover a population of as many as 10 million to 15 million electors. A 10 per cent. drop in registration in such areas, as seen in Northern Ireland, would equate to the disfranchisement of between 1 million and 1.5 million people. Some Members may be sanguine about the prospect of disfranchising 1 million people, but we are not. If a local pilot had such a negative impact, the Government and the local authority in question could work together to rebuild registration rates. With a regional pilot, however, the catastrophic scale of the drop in registration would make such rebuilding far more difficult to achieve.
	The purpose of holding pilots is to test a system that we feel is not yet ready to be rolled out. Here, there is a clear dividing line. We are testing the system because we are uncertain whether the benefits will be delivered without a catastrophic drop in the register; indeed, that is the whole principle behind piloting it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd spoke to new clause 5, which would prevent the rolling out of the use of personal identifiers on a permanent and nationwide basis without further primary legislation. As I said, there is no consensus on that issue. The Electoral Commission tells us to roll out personal identifiers now. My hon. Friend, who has tabled more parliamentary questions on the matter than anyone else—more perhaps than is altogether healthy—believes that, following pilots, a new Bill should be required to provide for national implementation.
	Our position, as I have explained, is an attempt to respond practically to both sides of the argument. We will hold pilots that will be thoroughly evaluated—and they will be evaluated, to answer the second point of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), by the   Electoral Commission. The Secretary of State will then take a decision as to whether he believes that the system is ready to be rolled out nationally.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd made a strong and powerful case, asserting the key role that   the House must play if we are to institute such a far-reaching new scheme throughout the entirety of the   UK. He clearly believes that it would be more appropriate for such a fundamental shift to be occasioned by primary, not secondary, legislation. The interest shown in the debate so far suggests that he advanced a powerful argument. However, my right hon. and learned Friend and I would like to reflect further on the implications of such a move. Given my assurances on how we are going to conduct the pilots, I hope that my hon. Friend is not minded to press the new clause.

David Heath: I am grateful to all those who participated in this brief debate, but hearing the Minister say that it was outrageous to suggest that an electoral experiment—a pilot—should be extended to anything as large as a region when the Government had no compunction about forcing four regions through an electoral experiment only a little while ago against the express views of the Electoral Commission and every single party represented in the House other than the Government takes the biscuit.

David Cairns: We did not move immediately to all-postal regional pilots. They were piloted at a local and voluntary level and lessons were learned before the regional voting pilots that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It would help if he were to clarify that that was the point that I was making.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman again attempts to clarify what he said, but the fact remains that, following that election, we had the biggest crisis of confidence in the electoral system of this country that we have ever seen. For the first time, we had people genuinely doubting whether the election in which they had just taken part was conducted freely and fairly. We should not tolerate that. What is the Government's response? Are they prepared to go into the next general election with the same postal voting precautions in place? Yes, they are. Their answer is, "We'll do something, but mañana—tomorrow, whatever." That is not a satisfactory position. We need to do something urgently. The Electoral Commission has given us a clear steer about how we should go forward and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 201, Noes 283.

Question accordingly negatived.

Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 15, line 24, at end insert—
	'(16)   In section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (Pilot schemes for local elections in England and Wales), after subsection (1), insert—
	"(1A)   No pilot scheme shall take place by all-postal voting or involve sending ballot papers to electors who have not expressly and explicitly requested to vote by post.".'.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 23, in page 15, line 24, at end insert—
	'(16)   In section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (Pilot schemes for local elections in England and Wales), after subsection (1), insert—
	"(1A)   No pilot scheme shall include provision for remote electronic voting, telephone voting, text message voting, internet voting or voting by analogous electronic means.".'.
	No. 24, in clause 16, page 16, line 9, at end insert—
	'(9)   In section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (Pilot schemes for local elections in England and Wales), after subsection (1), insert—
	"(1A)   No order is to be made containing provisions authorised by any section of this clause unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.".
	(10)   In section 11 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (Revision of procedures in the light of pilot schemes), after subsection (1), insert—
	"(1A)   No order is to be made containing provisions authorised by any section of this clause unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.".'.

Oliver Heald: Amendment No. 21 provides for no pilot schemes by all-postal voting. As Members on both sides of the Committee will be aware, the Electoral Commission has twice said that there should be an end to all-postal voting. It is clear—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. There is too much noise in the Chamber and it is difficult to listen to the debate.

Oliver Heald: It is clear that the public value the tried and tested ballot-box polling station—the traditional British way of voting. They should not be forced to vote by other means such as postal voting if they do not want to do so. That is the recommendation of the Electoral Commission; it has been restated twice and it is time that the Government agreed to it.
	Amendment No. 23 deals with pilot schemes for local elections and states that they should not include
	"electronic voting, telephone voting, text message voting, internet voting or voting by analogous electronic means".
	The point was made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that such pilot schemes have shown no sign of increasing turnout in the past. The concern with electronic voting is that there is no proper way to establish an audit trail, so we propose in amendment No. 23 that we should not introduce such measures when there is no justification for them.
	As for the experts, the Foundation for Information Policy Research has warned that
	"the only safe way to allow electronic voting is through machines controlled by election officials that produce an auditable paper trail. Anything else is an invitation for fraud".
	Let us not have that invitation. Mr. Ben Fairweather—a research fellow at De Montford university—has said:
	"I have seen most if not all of the pilot schemes demonstrated, and have spotted substantial flaws . . . How do you know who's in the room with someone when they vote and how can you be sure they are not trying to influence someone's vote? . . . There are serious worries about SMS voting."
	He goes on to describe all the difficulties with that. Let us take the same cautious approach to those issues as the Government claim they want to take.
	We are concerned that piloting is becoming a serial occupation of the Government. They pilot and pilot and pilot, and then they pilot and pilot and pilot. That has been said before in the debate, but it is getting to the point where some controls should be put in place, so we suggest that Parliament should approve the pilot schemes.

Anne Begg: The hon. Gentleman describes the current position with electronic voting or text messaging, but five years ago, I could not even text: the technology is moving at an incredibly rapid pace. Those types of voting could be secure in five years' time, but they would be ruled out if we were to agree to the amendment. It is very narrow minded and backward looking to rule out those innovative ways of voting.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways. We have tried an accurate system of voter registration in Northern Ireland. The Government have lauded it to the skies, but they will not introduce it in England. She is now saying, "We've tried electronic voting. It's failed. Let's introduce it." She cannot have it both ways.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is accurate in saying that the Government's intention is to pilot and pilot and pilot, given that the Minister seemed to postulate a three-stage pilot process, with a local, then a regional and then a supra-regional pilot scheme. So none of these things will ever be put in place.

Oliver Heald: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is right. I think that we both heard the rustle of the long grass, as the Minister kicked these proposals well into that territory. He then thought that that was perhaps not far enough, so he kicked them a bit further. In fact, piloting is a method of delay: the Government will not grasp the nettle.

Barbara Keeley: I disagree most profoundly. As I said earlier, I have experience of a number of successful all-postal pilot schemes. We had great success with them in Trafford and in Salford. Piloting is important because we are changing a system that people have used all their lives. If they are middle aged or older, they may have been voting in a certain way for a number of years. It takes a fair amount of work to make pilot schemes successful. I agree that some local authorities did not get together and work hard enough to make them a success, but some of them have been successful. The reason why the Government keep supporting pilots schemes is that we are changing the way that people vote. That is a profound change for a lot of people, and we need to try out different ways of doing it.

Oliver Heald: It is becoming an abuse—that is the truth of it. We were happy to agree to some pilots in 2000 to try ideas out, but here we are, five years later, still piloting. The Minister seems to want to carry on with pilots for another five or 10 years. This really will not do. If we are to have pilots, we ought to have proper parliamentary approval. I see that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) agrees—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I do not think that that was an invitation to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

David Cairns: The amendments relate to pilot schemes for local elections in England and Wales under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000. Amendment No. 21 would prevent local authorities from making applications to the Secretary of State to conduct pilots of all-postal ballots.
	In 2002, there were 13 all-postal pilot schemes. Those pilots secured significant increases in turnout in many areas. There was a 38.7 per cent. turnout on average in all pilots, compared with a national average of 32.8 per cent. In 2003, 33 all-postal pilots took place. The average turnout was just under 50 per cent., compared with the general picture of around 33 per cent.
	Subsequently to those first two trials—this is the point that I was making earlier, although I think that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mischievously chose to misrepresent me slightly—all-postal pilots were held in four English regions: east midlands, north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humber. Some 14.1 million electors were involved. At that election, turnout more than doubled in the pilot regions from the 1999 levels. In 2004, turnout in the pilot regions was 42 per cent., compared with 37 per cent. elsewhere. It is performance such as that that has led to many local authorities supporting all-postal ballots, as they keep turnout up.
	Clear and sincere concerns have been expressed about how we can tackle fraud in the midst of all that. I outlined earlier the fact that there are anti-fraud measures in the Bill, albeit only in brief because the matter was not especially germane to that group of amendments. Further measures to combat fraud in postal voting will follow in secondary legislation. The measures include a requirement for the address of the electoral registration officer to be on the postal vote application form and will require a reason for redirecting a postal vote. All applications for postal votes will have to be confirmed in writing and replacement postal voting papers will be available up to 5 pm on the day of the poll. Some of the learning and development that supports those changes has come from pilots in which specific problems have been highlighted.
	The Government believe that those measures will support all-postal pilots in the future, but we want them in place before any further pilots are carried out. As a result, the prospectus issued by the Department for pilots for the May 2006 elections specifically states that the Government are not seeking applications for all-postal pilots. While we have no intention to roll out all-postal voting as the default position for local elections in general, there might be instances in which such a pilot can be conducted effectively without any security concerns. In order to consider whether there is a case for allowing such elections to continue on an all-postal basis, we need to ensure that pilots of voting in such a way can be run to test and improve systems before any wider implementation.

Anne Begg: People are worried about changing the electoral system and pilots because of the possibility of abuse through fraud. However, if anything illustrated how seriously electoral fraud is taken, it was the court cases that resulted from the 2004 local elections in England. If anyone thought that such fraud would be treated lightly, they were soon disabused of that view because of what happened to the councillors who took part in it.

David Cairns: Let me say this clearly: the Government condemn fraud wherever it occurs and whomsoever is guilty of it. If the people who commit fraud are members of the Labour party or Labour councillors, that in no sense diminishes our outrage. In fact, it increases our outrage that such practice takes place. I utterly condemn fraud and the people who attempt it. We are introducing measures through the Bill to minimise the risk of fraud. My hon. Friend was right to say that the judgment was serious. We are learning the lessons from that and making it absolutely clear that there will be zero tolerance of fraud, irrespective of who commits it.

Brian Binley: The night is getting late, my mind is slowing down and the Minister speaks very quickly. Did the Minister say that there would be postal voting pilots for local council elections? If so, will he give a commitment that he will allow local government to decide whether or not it wants that pilot, or will it be done by Government edict?

David Cairns: No, I specifically said in the prospectus for the next local council elections that we are not inviting invitations for all-postal pilots, although there will be other pilots to test various locations where people can vote and so on. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will put anti-fraud measures in place, along with the other measures that I outlined. He might ask the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) why I am speaking so quickly to this group of amendments.

Patrick Cormack: Yes, let us get on.

David Cairns: I apologise to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire.

Oliver Heald: The Electoral Commission said that all-postal voting should not be pursued and that
	"the option of sending ballot papers automatically to every registered elector should not be pursued".
	Why will the Minister not just give the Committee an assurance that all-postal voting will be abandoned?

David Cairns: We see merit in all-postal voting. There is a clear difference between our position and that of the Electoral Commission, as there is on several other issues. I remind the Committee that the vast majority of the recommendations in the Bill were made by the Electoral Commission, and we listened to it carefully on a range of issues. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said on Second Reading, it is for the commission to make recommendations to the House, but it is for the House to decide how to implement those recommendations. On this issue, we do not agree with the commission, but we accept that additional anti-fraud measures must be put in place before we proceed any further.

David Heath: Does the Minister accept that there are two principal objections to all-postal ballots? One is the requirement that there should at least be an opportunity for people to vote in person if that is their preference, and the other is the fact that identifiers are not in place to allow an all-postal ballot to be conducted without threat of fraud. QED, such arrangements should be made sooner, which is why we do not want the pilots to be long-haul.

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to revisit a discussion on a previous group of amendments. Let me reiterate that we are concerned to put anti-fraud measures place before we proceed with further all-postal ballots. It will be appropriate to hold such ballots when there is a minimal security threat. An example is the recent Downham Market parish by-election, which passed off entirely without fraud.—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is casting aspersions on the voters of Downham Market I am outraged, and I disassociate the Government and myself from those allegations. We do not want to paint ourselves into a corner and say that we will never hold a postal ballot again, because that is not wise.

Andrew Love: May I share with my hon. Friend the real dilemma about piloting? What happens if all the local authorities that wish to participate in pilots have high registration in middle-class areas? What if, for example, none of the London authorities offer themselves for pilots, because they think that the response will be negative for them? Would the Minister roll out the scheme, knowing that certain areas of the country did not believe that the pilot would be successful for them?

David Cairns: I am not certain whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber when I addressed that issue in relation to a previous group of amendments. In relation to the pilots for individual identifiers and registration, I gave a clear commitment that we would seek to draw from as wide an area as possible within the seven categories outlined by the Office for National Statistics. Postal balloting is a different issue, but I take the point that my hon. Friend is making.
	Amendment No. 23 seeks to place a ban on the piloting of electronic voting. Research for the Electoral Commission released in 2003 shows that there is significant demand for electronic voting and that it may help to stem the declining turnout at elections. The research reveals that more than half—55 per cent.—of adults in England said that being offered electronic voting in some form would encourage them to vote at the next local election. We are all safely outside the youngest demographic group, 18 to 24-year-olds, who are most keen to try the new methods, with three-quarters of them saying that e-voting would encourage them to participate.
	The electoral process must fit with modern lifestyles, because many people spend little if any time in the locality of their polling station in the course of their working day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) has said, as the population in general becomes more comfortable with conducting transactions electronically, enabling e-voting could promote increased participation in elections. Local authorities have also demonstrated an interest in using electronic voting as an option in local elections. In recent years, a number of pilots have been conducted, and they have provided some important lessons, which were outlined in various contributions earlier in Committee.
	Piloting electronic voting in local elections allows new technologies to be tested and the identification of ways in which the security of the vote may be improved. While the Electoral Commission has identified areas in which previous electronic voting pilots have needed improvement, it also sees such developments as important in increasing future participation in elections.
	Finally, amendment No. 24 proposes an additional parliamentary layer in the sign-off process for pilots run under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000, which allows local authorities to propose innovations on how they run their elections. Those proposals are based on local experience of what might work in local elections as well as local expectations about what might work better. The proposals are currently assessed by the Department, and the Secretary of State determines which pilots should proceed following consultation with the Electoral Commission. Pilots are assessed for suitability against a framework of criteria thattakes account of the Electoral Commission's recommendation and Government policy on electoral modernisation.
	This is not a great issue of principle for the Government—it is an issue of process. The argument advanced by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire was slightly disingenuous, because he was trying to scupper the whole notion of pilots, both now and in the future, whereas we are trying to improve the process.

Mark Harper: Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on the Front Bench about ruling out all-postal pilots completely, the Minister has not addressed the importance of allowing electors to choose how they want to vote. If the Government want to pursue the concept of all-postal pilots, will they consider giving electors the option of voting in person? At this year's election, a number of my constituents who had previously registered for postal voting contacted the council to deregister, because, among other reasons, they were concerned about fraud and wanted to vote in person because they thought it more secure.

David Cairns: I hear the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is axiomatic that if people take their ballot paper to a polling station, it is not an all-postal pilot. However, no immediate plans exist for any further all-postal pilots, which are not included in the prospectus for the local elections in 2006. We want anti-fraud measures in place before we consider any further such pilots.
	Returning to amendment No. 24, it is not clear how an additional level of parliamentary oversight of such pilots, particularly when they are already independently assessed by the Electoral Commission, would automatically add value to the process. If we were to move towards the system outlined by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, we would be concerned about placing any additional constraints on an already tight timetable for proposing, approving, establishing, conducting and reporting on those pilots. However, the Government acknowledge the importance of Parliament having the final say on whether any local government pilot scheme should be adopted on a permanent basis, which is why section 11(3) of the Representation of the People Act 2000 includes an affirmative resolution procedure. As that is already law, amendment No. 24 is unnecessary.
	I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is satisfied and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Oliver Heald: I am not satisfied, but I intend to make that request to the Committee.
	On the parliamentary scrutiny of piloting, when piloting was originally agreed, we did not get the sense that the process would involve piloting, piloting and piloting for ever and a day, allowing Ministers in effect to choose the arrangements in any particular area for elections over a sustained period. There is the risk of abuse in the long term if that continues. We believe that it is a good idea to have that parliamentary protection.
	Given that the Minister said that he is thinking about these issues, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18
	 — 
	Offences as to false registration information

Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in clause 18, page 17, line 15, after 'electors', insert 'knowingly'.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 26, in clause 18, page 17, line 18, after 'who', insert 'knowingly'.

Oliver Heald: We support the creation of the new offence of providing false information when registering or applying for a postal or proxy vote. The amendment would add the word, "knowingly". We tabled it as a probing amendment to find out whether householders who act in error but in good faith would be able to mount a defence in the courts. As most defences have a mental element, we are simply asking the Minister what the situation is in this case.

David Heath: I shall make an equally short contribution. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is always difficult to prove intent in such matters, and I am not sure that his amendment is appropriate in these circumstances. I do not want to give the green light to the people who appear every year without fail in a tabloid newspaper saying that their pet dog, goldfish or toddler has been registered and that the local authority is absurd to have done so although it is they who have filled in the name on the registration form. If we can avoid that happening by pain of this offence, we will have done a service to the electoral system.

David Cairns: We agree with the intention behind the amendment. It is right that someone should not be prosecuted for making an innocent mistake on a form. However, the amendment is not necessary to achieve that outcome. Clause 18 amends section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The offence will be set out in subsection (1) of section 13D and must be read with subsection (4), which provides that a person does not commit an offence of providing false information if
	"he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the information was false."
	Although we agree with the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expresses, his amendment is unnecessary and I hope that he will withdraw it.

Oliver Heald: That is a most satisfactory assurance from the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Death of candidate

'In Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules) for rule 60 (countermand or abandonment of poll on death of candidate) and the cross-heading preceding it substitute—
	"Independent candidate
	   (1)   This rule applies if at a contested election proof is given to the returning officer's satisfaction before the result of the election is declared that one of the persons named or to be named in the ballot papers as an independent candidate has died. (2)   Subject to this rule and rules 61 and 62, these rules apply to the election as if the candidate had not died.
	(3)   The following provisions of these rules do not apply in relation to the deceased candidate—
	(a)   rule 32(1)(c) and (d) (admission to polling station);
	(b)   rule 44(2)(b) to (d) (attendance at count);
	(c)   rule 53(4) (forfeiture of deposit).
	(4)   If only two persons are shown as standing nominated in the statement of persons nominated the returning officer must—
	(a)   if polling has not begun, countermand the notice of poll;
	(b)   if polling has begun, direct that the poll is abandoned;
	(c)   subject to rule 65, treat the election as an uncontested election.
	(5)   For the purposes of this rule a person is named or to be named on the ballot papers as an independent candidate if the description (if any) on his nomination paper is not authorised as mentioned in rule 6A(1) or (1B).
	Deceased independent candidate wins
	61   (1)   This rule applies if at an election mentioned in rule 60(1) the majority of votes is given to the deceased candidate. (2)   Rule 50(1) (declaration of result) does not apply but the returning officer must—
	(a)   declare that the majority of votes has been given to the deceased candidate,
	(b)   declare that no member is returned, and
	(c)   give public notice of the total number of votes given for each candidate together with the number of rejected ballot papers under each head shown in the statement of rejected ballot papers.
	(3)   Rule 53 (return or forfeiture of candidate's deposit) does not apply in relation to the remaining candidates.
	(4)   The returning officer must not return the writ and the proceedings with reference to the election must be commenced afresh subject to the following provisions of this rule.
	(5)   The writ for the election must be taken to have been received on the first working day after the end of the period of seven days starting on the day of the election mentioned in rule 60(1).
	(6)   No fresh nomination is necessary in the case of a person shown in the statement of persons nominated as standing nominated, and no other nomination may be made.
	(7)   The last day on which a notice of withdrawal of candidature by a person who stands nominated by virtue of paragraph (6) may be delivered is the seventh working day after the day on which the writ is taken to be received.
	(8)   Rule 9 (deposit) does not apply.
	(9)   The poll must be held on a day in the period which starts 15 working days after the day on which the writ is taken to have been received and ends 19 working days after that day.
	(10)   For the purposes of this rule a working day is a day which is not a day specified in rule 2(1)(a) to (c).
	Deceased independent candidate with equality of votes
	62  In an election mentioned in rule 60(1), if— (a)   rule 49 applies (equality of votes), and
	(b)   any of the candidates to whom that rule applies is a deceased candidate, the deceased candidate must be ignored.
	Party candidate
	63   (1)   This rule applies if— (a)   at a contested election proof is given to the returning officer's satisfaction before the result of the election is declared that one of the persons named or to be named as a candidate in the ballot paper has died, and
	(b)   that person is standing in the name of a registered political party.
	(2)   The returning officer must—
	(a)   countermand notice of the poll, or
	(b)   if polling has begun, direct that the poll be abandoned.
	(3)   The proceedings with reference to the election must be commenced afresh subject to the following provisions of this rule.
	(4)   The writ for the election must be taken to have been received on the first working day after the end of the period of seven days starting on the day the proof is given to the returning officer.
	(5)   No fresh nomination is necessary in the case of a person shown in the statement of persons nominated as standing nominated.
	(6)   No other nomination may be made except for a person standing in the name of the same registered political party in whose name the deceased candidate was standing.
	(7)   The last day on which a nomination mentioned in paragraph (6) may be delivered is the seventh working day after the day on which the writ is taken to be received.
	(8)   The last day on which a notice of withdrawal of candidature by a person who stands nominated by virtue of paragraph (5) or in pursuance of paragraph (6) may be delivered is the seventh working day after the day on which the writ is taken to be received.
	(9)   The poll must be held on a day in the period which starts 15 working days after the day on which the writ is taken to have been received and ends 19 working days after that day.
	(10)   For the purposes of this rule—
	(a)   a person stands in the name of a registered political party if his nomination paper contains a description which is authorised as mentioned in rule 6A(1) or (1B);
	(b)   a registered political party is a party which is registered under Part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000;
	(c)   a working day is a day which is not a day specified in rule 2(1)(a) to (c).
	Speaker of the House of Commons seeking re-election
	64   (1)   This rule applies if at a contested election— (a)   one of the candidates is the Speaker of the House of Commons seeking re-election, and
	(b)   proof is given to the returning officer's satisfaction before the result of the election is declared that that candidate has died.
	(2)   The returning officer must—
	(a)   countermand notice of the poll, or
	(b)   if polling has begun, direct that the poll be abandoned.
	(3)   The proceedings with reference to the election must be commenced afresh subject to the following provisions of this rule.
	(4)   The writ for the election must be taken to have been received on the first working day after the end of the period of seven days starting on the day the proof is given to the returning officer.
	(5)   The last day on which—
	(a)   nominations, or
	(b)   notice of withdrawal of candidature,
	may be delivered is the seventh working day after the day on which the writ is taken to be received.
	(6)   The poll must be held on a day in the period which starts 15 working days after the day on which the writ is taken to have been received and ends 19 working days after that day.
	(7)   For the purposes of this rule a working day is a day which is not a day specified in rule 2(1)(a) to (c).
	Abandoned poll
	65   (1)   This rule applies to— (a)   a poll which is abandoned in pursuance of rule 60(4)(b) as if it were a poll at a contested election;
	(b)   a poll which is abandoned in pursuance of rule 63(2)(b) or 64(2)(b).
	(2)   The presiding officer at a polling station must take the like steps (so far as not already taken) for the delivery to the returning officer of ballot boxes and of ballot papers and other documents as he is required to take on the close of the poll.
	(3)   The returning officer must dispose of ballot papers and other documents in his possession as is he required to do on the completion of the counting of the votes.
	(4)   It is not necessary for a ballot paper account to be prepared or verified.
	(5)   No step or further step is to be taken for the counting of the ballot papers or of the votes.
	(6)   The returning officer must seal up all the ballot papers (whether the votes on them have been counted or not) and it is not necessary to seal up counted and rejected ballot papers in separate packets.
	(7)   The provisions of these rules as to the inspection, production, retention and destruction of ballot papers and other documents relating to a poll at an election apply subject to paragraphs (8) and (9).
	(8)   Ballot papers on which the votes were neither counted nor rejected must be treated as counted ballot papers.
	(9)   No order is to be made for—
	(a)   the production or inspection of any ballot papers, or
	(b)   the opening of a sealed packet of the completed corresponding number lists or of certificates as to employment on the day of the poll,
	unless the order is made by a court with reference to a prosecution.".'.—[Sir Patrick Cormack.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Patrick Cormack: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Candidate not to stand in more than one constituency—
	'In Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules), in rule 8(3) (candidate's consent to nomination), after paragraph (b) insert—
	"(c)   shall state that he is not a candidate at an election for any other constituency the poll for which is to be held on the same day as that for the election to which the consent relates,".'.

Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to be able to move new clause 3 and grateful to you, Sir Alan, for grouping it with new clause 2. It has been a long wait, but not quite as long as the wait that I had before I got here in the summer.
	I begin by paying a genuine tribute to the Minister and her staff, who have been unfailingly courteous and helpful to me. When I sought leave to introduce my private Member's Bill under the ten-minute rule on 6 July, the Minister immediately got in touch with me and told me that she was minded to support my Bill, but that it might be better to incorporate it into the Bill that she proposed to introduce to the House in the autumn. That is why we are where we are today, as I said on Second Reading.
	The new clauses would incorporate in the Bill most of the provisions of the measure that I sought to introduce after my delayed return to the House of Commons because of the tragic death of one of my opponents, the Liberal Democrat candidate. I am grateful to colleagues in all parties for their support. Those who have put their names to the new clause give some indication of that support.
	However, I believe that, for once, there has been an error because the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine), who has newly arrived in the House in place of the late Robin Cook, was one of my supporters, but I see that his name has been translated into that of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr.   Denham), who chairs the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I am sure that he would equally support the new clause, but I wanted to put on the record my gratitude to the hon. Member for Livingston for stepping into Robin Cook's shoes because he was one of the sponsors of the original Bill.
	I do not want to detain or weary the House, but I wish to explain briefly the effect of the new clauses. They appear to be rather more complicated than the measure that I tried to introduce because the Minister's officials and the parliamentary draftsmen have taken a belt-and-braces approach to the matter, for which I am grateful.
	Delay was one of the principal causes of concern. Under the new clause, had my opponent died between 20 and 27 April, the election would have been postponed by three weeks at the most. My opponent died on 30 April and I would have faced either a three-week or a four-week delay. I say "either/or" because it depends on the time of year. My opponent died before a period that included the bank holiday. The problem of delay is therefore tackled fairly effectively.
	The new clause provides that the death of an independent candidate would not delay an election. I have previously argued that an independent candidate is by definition and sui generis a unique individual. If, sadly, that individual dies, he or she cannot be replaced. The draftsmen wanted to cover every eventuality and the new clause therefore makes one exception. If the Speaker dies in his constituency, he would not be treated as an independent candidate and the election would be rerun. We all know that the Speaker stands as Mr. Speaker seeking re-election. He is not a member of any political party but is in a unique position and the new clause recognises that.
	The new clause also covers what would happen if the deceased independent candidate won. There would be no contest unless it was simply a two-horse race, in which case the one who did not die is declared elected. I hope that that will not put too many ideas into people's heads. The days of the straight fight appear, perhaps sadly, to be over.
	I was anxious to tackle the problem—I know that that applies to the Minister, too—of small and eccentric parties. We have not yet cracked that one; perhaps it might be possible to do so in another place. I am sure that if an ingenious Lord devised an amendment, the Minister and her colleagues would probably view it sympathetically. As the new clause stands, every registered political party, regardless of its size or nature, is treated the same. The new clause does not, therefore, deal with that.
	Rule 65, entitled "Abandoned poll", deals with keeping documentation in the event of a candidate's death. As we all know, the documentation following an election has to be kept for a prescribed period. That would remain the case if an election were abandoned.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman referred to small and eccentric parties. What about large and eccentric parties such as the Natural Law party? Is there any provision for them?

Patrick Cormack: No, there cannot be. In this wonderful democracy of ours, it is entirely up to people to register as political parties if they meet the criteria, and if they have money to spend they can fight as many elections as they like. No, this provision would not cover the Natural Law party or the British National party. It would not cover any party registered as a political party. It would not cover the Vote For Yourself Rainbow Dream Ticket party, to which I have referred in the House before, a lady representative of which stood in all four seats in Cardiff. She got one vote in one of them. Presumably, as she was a member of a vote-for-yourself party, it was her own vote. That party would not be covered.
	I hope that we can have further examination of this particular problem. Among those 13 or so candidates who stood against the Prime Minister, some were indeed independents, but others belonged to strange and eccentric parties. I hope that we can find a mechanism for differentiating between the parties represented in the House tonight and those other fringe parties, but we have not yet done so.

Peter Robinson: This is a problem and it needs to be resolved. It is possible that a euthanasia party or a hara-kiri party could be registered and, as part of their election campaign, their candidates would obviously die. Such parties might be small and eccentric, but the problem has to be dealt with. Could we not set a threshold of a certain number of votes polled at the previous election, or a number of Members of Parliament returned at the previous election, to overcome the problem?

Patrick Cormack: I put forward that proposal in my first speech, when I introduced my Bill. I had talks with the Minister and her officials and with the chairman of the Electoral Commission, but they all felt that it would be difficult to agree on any particular point. I also suggested—this might be given further consideration—that the criteria by which a political party gets a political broadcast might be brought into play in this context. However, we still have a potential problem, and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has underlined it in rather graphic and dramatic form.

Rudi Vis: Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us what would happen if two people from minority parties died at the same time? I should be most interested to hear his analysis of such a situation.

Sammy Wilson: You call in the police.

Patrick Cormack: As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is in fact on the Northern Ireland Policing Board, says, we call in the police. Perhaps we should leave that one there.
	My plight before 5 May underlined a very real problem, and Members in all parts of the House were extremely kind in recognising that. I do not pretend that the Bill meets every eventuality, and nor would the Minister so claim, but it does meet most of them. One other problem that it does not address is one with which the Minister's officials and I struggled. We wondered whether it would be possible to give the afflicted party, if I can put it that way, the opportunity of knowing whether it should continue. But, of course, that would depend on when the death occurred, and the party would have to have some time to make that decision. We did not feel, therefore, that we could include that provision.
	There is one provision in the new clause that was not in my original Bill, and I am grateful to the Minister for its inclusion. It states that a party is not allowed to substitute its candidates. In my case, for instance, the Liberal Democrat candidate died, and there had to be an opportunity for the Liberal Democrat party to field another candidate. However, the Labour party changed its candidate, too. I want to stress that I am not making any criticism of the two people in question, with whom I was on extremely good terms. I understood the reasons why that had happened. What they did was also entirely legal, as the law stands. However, the Minister feels, and I agree with her, that the death of one candidate should not provide an opportunity for other parties to substitute candidates.
	The new clause would also not allow new candidates to enter the field. In my election on 5 May, I had three opponents, but I subsequently finished up with seven. That would not be allowed. If the general election is being replicated—I was elected legally at the general election—there should not be the opportunity for new candidates to enter the field. New clause 3 deals with all those points.
	New clause 2 addresses a specific and remaining problem—not one that arose in my case, but one that I was able to highlight when I talked to the lady who stood in the four Cardiff seats. As Members on both sides of the House probably know, there is nothing to prevent any one of us, provided we can provide the requisite number of signatures and the requisite deposits, from standing in as many constituencies as we wish. The Minister and I believe that the days of that being permissible are long gone. It is up to an individual to decide which seat he or she wishes to contest, without being able to stand in a range of others.
	My case showed what might happen—this picks up on a point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East in his intervention—so one can envisage an individual standing against every member of the Cabinet or shadow Cabinet, or against the Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers. If that person died, committed suicide or was assassinated, all those seats would be without Members for a period.
	At the last election, the complexion of the Government was not in doubt on 6 May, nor did it depend on the result in South Staffordshire, but I have been a Member of the House for a very long time and I remember that there was no overall majority after the first election in 1974. There was a weekend of bargaining between the late Sir Edward Heath, whose memorial service many of us attended today, and Mr. Jeremy Thorpe to see whether a coalition of some sort could be cobbled together.
	Later that year there was another election, after which the Labour party had an overall majority of four. You have only to imagine, Sir Alan, what might happen if a candidate standing in half a dozen seats died or killed himself in such a situation. There could be constitutional chaos. So, new clause 2 addresses that specific point and will make it impossible for any individual to stand in more than one seat.
	The two new clauses meet virtually all the points that I addressed in my Bill on 6 July. I am grateful to the Minister for her co-operation; I am extremely grateful, as I said at the outset, to her officials. I hope that the House gives the new clauses a fair wind so that they can be incorporated in the Bill and so that nobody, in any part of the House, has to face what I faced in those seven rather difficult weeks in May and June this year.

Eleanor Laing: It gives me great pleasure to support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). Indeed, my hon. and right hon. Friends and I have put our names to it. It is extremely necessary.
	This constitutional difficulty became clear because of the sad death of a candidate. My hon. Friend reiterated that this evening, as he did very well when we debated this point on Second Reading. We should not forget that we would not be having this discussion had this anomaly not been brought to our notice by that sad death.
	However, we should all support these proposals—I am pleased that the Minister has indicated the Government's support for the new clause—because the anomaly that left us without my hon. Friend for several weeks after the general election could, as he has just so eloquently put it, in different circumstances cause serious constitutional difficulties in this place. It is fortunate that we have this opportunity to put the matter right.
	On first reading, the newly drafted new clause 3 and consequent amendments are not the simple proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire brought forward when he first introduced the idea. After carefully reading through the Government's thorough draftsmanship, however, I have realised that in seeking to close a loophole we must be careful not to allow further loopholes. As various Members have said this evening, what would happen should an unforeseen situation arise? While no legislation can foresee all the circumstances that it is intended to remedy, should the remedy be required, it seems that the thorough drafting takes into consideration all the situations that we can currently envisage that might cause a constitutional problem.
	The hon. Member for South Staffordshire is absolutely correct in wanting to change the situation whereby new candidates would be allowed to stand, or candidates would be substituted, in an election that would result under the legislation. If there is to be a proper replication of a general election, it must be exactly as it would have been on the day of the general election, except for the absence of the person who has sadly died. The complicated wording is therefore necessary to ensure that that occurs correctly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire is also absolutely correct to distinguish between an independent candidate and the Speaker, were the Speaker to be involved in such a situation, because the situation is not the same as for a candidate who represents a party. If we are seeking to replicate a general election, it is essential that that distinction should be included.
	Clearly, the loophole that led to the absence of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire for so many weeks after the general election should be closed. Unlike on many other parts of the Bill, the Committee is in complete agreement. I therefore commend the new clause to the Committee.

David Heath: I applaud the way in which the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) introduced the new clause, and I thank him for the kind words of tribute that he paid to his opponent from my party, who sadly lost her life during the campaign. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) was absolutely right that the circumstances in which the new rules apply involve a personal tragedy of a candidate dying during a campaign, which we should not forget.
	The intricate proposals, which have been worked out, as I understand it, with the support of parliamentary draftsmen working for the Government, appear to meet the bill. In saying that they appear to meet the bill, I am not suggesting that I do not support them, but I want to enter one note of caution. It is very easy, because of the affection and regard in which the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and those who have supported his proposals are held, not to do those proposals proper justice in terms of scrutiny. The Floor of the House is quite a difficult place on which to do that. I wonder whether it might be appropriate for the Constitutional Affairs Committee to have sight of the amendments before they complete their parliamentary passage, so that we can be assured that the potential consequences have been considered.
	Some questions arise in my mind, and perhaps the Minister or the hon. Member for South Staffordshire can help me as to how the provisions would apply in the case of other elections. Clearly, they are predicated on a death during a general election. They would also apply in a parliamentary by-election. I am not sure whether we need to consider parallel conditions for other elections, such as local authority elections, mayoral elections or European parliamentary elections. Perhaps the Minister will consider that.
	As far as the precise provisions are concerned, the proposal seems to cover almost every eventuality. The circumstance in which there are only two candidates and an independent candidate dies, in which case the other candidate is declared the winner, seems to be not so much a process of election as of natural selection. Under paragraph 62, the phrase
	"the deceased candidate must be ignored"
	seems over-brutal. Those are mere observations along the way.

Patrick Cormack: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. The only circumstance where the death of one candidate in a two-candidate race could conceivably happen is where one of the candidates was the Speaker, because it is the custom that the major parties do not normally contest that election. That is why we specifically separated the Speaker's election from any other. I do not think that there are any other circumstances in which that would be likely to happen.

David Heath: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says and do not want to detain the House any further, other than to give my general support to the view that we need to deal with the anomaly, and to hope that we do justice to the hon. Gentleman's new clauses.

Harriet Harman: I have nothing to add, except to say that I completely agree with all the points made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire. The tragic death of the candidate in South Staffordshire shone a light on a problem that, with a great deal of hard work and consultation, he has solved. Should, tragically, a candidate die in future, the Cormack clause will swing into effect and will ensure that democracy is delayed as little as possible.
	The House is in the hon. Gentleman's debt. I thank him for his work and ask the House to agree to the new clauses.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Candidate not to stand in more than one constituency

'In Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules), in rule 8(3) (candidate's consent to nomination), after paragraph (b) insert—
	"(c)   shall state that he is not a candidate at an election for any other constituency the poll for which is to be held on the same day as that for the election to which the consent relates,".'.—[Sir Patrick Cormack.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Bill (Clauses 9 to 18 and new clauses 2 and 3) reported, with amendments; to lie upon the Table.

PETITION
	 — 
	IsItFair Campaign

James Arbuthnot: I wish to present a petition collected by Mrs Janet Kelly of Whitehill in my constituency. It is part of the IsItFair council tax protest campaign.
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of the IsItFair council tax protest campaign declares:
	That the year-on-year, inflation-busting increases in Council Tax are causing hardship to many and take no account of ability to pay: further that the proposed property revaluation and re-banding exercise will make an already flawed system even worse.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons votes to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income, such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographically or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

PENSIONER POVERTY (NORTH BELFAST)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Gillian Merron.]

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to the important issue of senior citizens and poverty in north Belfast.
	My constituency has one of the highest numbers of senior citizens in Northern Ireland. Levels of long-term illness, disability and poverty are also among the highest in Northern Ireland constituencies. The problems of poverty and deprivation that afflict senior citizens and pensioners in my area are common to senior citizens throughout Northern Ireland, but they are, if anything, felt more acutely in my constituency. I therefore urge the Minister to bring some hope of relief to a significant section of the community that has made an enormous contribution to our society. It has brought us through some dark, difficult and challenging days in our history. Even today it contributes massively to the richness of our community, especially in north Belfast.
	The Government will say that people over 75 benefit from free television licences, winter fuel payments, home security measures, free prescriptions and so forth. In Northern Ireland, pensioners can also avail themselves of free public transport—courtesy of Democratic Unionist party Ministers in the old devolved Assembly. No doubt the Government will also say that older people are identified as a priority under the Promoting Social Inclusion initiative, among other measures. It appears to me, however, that in north Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland there is no joined-up approach in Government or among statutory bodies and funders, to tackling issues of concern to senior citizens.
	Let me give an example. The north Belfast senior citizens forum does enormously good work under the sterling leadership of its chairperson Meg Holmes. It is an umbrella organisation formed from some 30 older people's groups in north Belfast that are dedicated to promoting the welfare of older people and contributing to the relief of poverty, sickness and disability among senior citizens on both sides of the community—for the forum is a truly cross-community organisation. It gives older people a voice through lobbying and advocacy, but also gives them practical help through an outreach advice service—a handy persons scheme. It is a valuable source of information. It has been instrumental in raising concern about the safety and wellbeing of older citizens, and has played a leading role as a founder member of the north Belfast older people's community safety partnership.
	The forum is part of a thriving voluntary and community senior citizens sector in Northern Ireland. Age Concern Northern Ireland and Help the Aged (Northern Ireland) are the best-known organisations of this kind, but consortiums of older people's organisations such as the north Belfast senior citizens forum and the Northern Ireland pensioners convention are working hard in their local areas. However, the forum and other groups now face a funding crisis. I recently brought together a number of statutory organisations and funders to meet the forum. I urge the Minister to become involved not only in helping the forum but in bringing together statutory bodies, Departments and funders in a joined-up approach to the financing and resourcing of such groups, so that there is a coherent strategy in all parts of the Province.
	I was told at the meeting that a group in the Newry area was receiving substantial funding—up to £100,000—from the local health trust. Yet the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust is not giving anywhere near such help and resources to the group in my area. Indeed, in other parts of the Province no help whatsoever has been given, so there is clearly an inconsistent approach. There needs to be more joined-up thinking and a much more coherent approach to funding these groups, which are doing sterling work in their local areas.
	Many of my older constituents suffer from long-standing illnesses. Research indicates that in Northern Ireland, 19 per cent. of people aged over 50 have mobility problems, compared with 10 per cent. of the population as a whole. Some 64 per cent. of people aged 65 or over have long-standing illnesses or disability. The fact that 6 per cent. of those aged over 75 still live, in this day and age, in unfit dwellings is part of the problem. Many older people in particular still live in inadequate housing that is not suitable for their needs. Service providers must address the provision of advice and information, and the links between housing, health care and support.
	One issue that constituents frequently raise with me in my advice surgeries is what will happen to them when they fall ill in their old age, and what services they will be able to avail themselves of in Belfast, North—a point that applies across the board. They are concerned about how they will provide for themselves and how they will be cared for. People with dementia and their carers comprise an especially marginalised group of mostly older people.
	A major issue affecting the quality of older people's lives is long-term care. The royal commission dealing with this subject recommended that both nursing and personal care should be free, based on an assessment of need. Indeed, during the lifetime of the old Assembly, a number of colleagues and I had the pleasure of presenting a motion to that Assembly, urging the introduction of free nursing and personal care in Northern Ireland. It was adopted unanimously.
	In a written parliamentary reply to me in July of this year, the Minister with responsibility for health matters in Northern Ireland said that he had asked officials to update the interdepartmental group's report on personal care, which had been submitted to the Northern Ireland Executive on 8 August 2002. I urge the Government to make progress in this area. People are looking for a response, and it will not be good enough for the Government to adopt the line that they will await making a decision until the possible restoration of the Assembly. They do not adopt the same attitude when it comes to pressing ahead in other areas, notably the education sector. We are looking for answers.
	Recent announcements by the Government have increased concern among my constituents that the level of poverty among pensioners will increase. We in Northern Ireland are familiar enough with the problems of fuel poverty. Tragically, many pensioners have had to make a choice between heating and eating. But we now have the real prospect of tens of thousands of people, many of them pensioners, being plunged into water poverty.
	I accept that Northern Ireland's water service requires substantial sustained investment in its infrastructure. However, underfunding by successive Governments in the past 30 years has deprived it of the investment that is needed to replace and update much of a system that has served Northern Ireland for more than a century. The Government have determined that the only solution is to make the water service self-funding by charging consumers for the service provided. It is clear to me and to many in Northern Ireland that the introduction of water charges fulfils a key objective of this Government: to increase significantly the level of local taxation paid by households in Northern Ireland.
	I do not wish to get into a general debate on water charges this evening, except to say that the argument that Northern Ireland needs to be brought into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in that regard would carry more weight if the same argument were applied across the board. It does not take into account the fact that Northern Ireland average household income levels are some 19 per cent. lower than in the rest of the UK, or that almost a quarter of those aged 60 or older in Northern Ireland are in receipt of income support compared to 13.5 per cent. in England and Wales. It does not take into account the fact that household essentials, such as energy and fuel, are much more expensive.
	The proposed water charges, coupled with massive rises in the regional rate, with which I shall deal in a few moments, will place an extremely heavy burden—an intolerable burden, in my view—on older people. It will worsen the position for pensioner households that are already in poverty and it will add to the numbers of households and people in poverty overall.
	The Government state that they are committed to eliminating pensioner poverty, but it seems to me to be totally at variance with that objective for them to impose what I regard as such a regressive tax. The age sector reference group in Northern Ireland highlighted the lack of proper consultation with older people or of proper analysis of the consequences of the introduction of water charges, especially for older people.
	The original proposal for a 25 per cent. discount for those in receipt of housing benefit rent rebate was totally inadequate. I welcome the fact that the Government have delayed the introduction of water charges, but they must radically reassess the position. The report of Paddy Hillyard and Fiona Scullion of Queen's university demonstrated that the highest risk of water poverty will be experienced by pensioner households. It also concluded that the scheme will have an adverse effect on the poorest sections of the community in Northern Ireland. Those are reasons enough to make the Government reassess their whole approach to this matter.
	Senior citizens in my constituency have spoken to me not just with anxiety, but with real fear about what the future holds for them, when they are faced with the prospect of having to make water charge payments as well as paying higher fuel prices, higher rates bills and having to survive on an inadequate pension.
	I mentioned fuel poverty earlier. It is defined as a spend of more than 10 per cent. of income, excluding housing costs, on heating, lighting and various appliance uses. The Department for Social Development has estimated that 170,000 households are at risk of fuel poverty. Given that the income of a pensioner household is estimated to be only a third of that of households that are in work, fuel poverty clearly affects older people badly. Figures indicate that 50 per cent. of fuel-poor households are aged 60 or more and 22 per cent. aged 75 or more.
	The rate of excess winter deaths among people in my constituency and across Northern Ireland is totally unacceptable. Despite the various energy efficiency schemes and the introduction of winter fuel payments, 1,300 older people died from cold-related illnesses in 2002, accounting for over two thirds of all winter deaths. Those deaths could and should have been avoided. It is, quite frankly, a scandal that in this day and age we should be talking about figures like that. There must be proper resourcing and targets to eliminate fuel poverty.
	I welcome the launch of the fuel poverty strategy for Northern Ireland and I welcome the warm homes scheme, which was introduced when Democratic Unionist party Ministers were in office in the old Assembly, but it needs to be extended and more resources need to be put into it. I recognise the fact that the Minister has taken a personal interest in this issue, but more needs to be done, particularly in respect of more resources. The scheme should not be restricted to older people who are in receipt of qualifying benefits such as pension credit, since many do not claim it, even though they are entitled to it.
	The decision to increase the regional rate by 19 per cent. represents a double whammy for people in Northern Ireland, but particularly for our senior citizens. Looming on the horizon is the reform of the domestic rating system, and there is much concern about the impact that that will have on older and vulnerable people.
	No one is under any illusion about the great difficulties involved in reforming the current rate system, but there are real concerns about the suggestion that the capital value of a person's home is broadly linked to that householder's economic resources. Groups working with older people in my constituency point out that a large proportion of them live in properties that they bought 30 or 40 years ago. Although the value of properties may have rocketed thanks to their location and the natural rise in house prices, it is not right to assume that their owners have a lot of disposable income as a result. One pensioner in four lives in poverty, and 74 per cent. of older people between 60 and 74 years of age live in privately owned homes. The reform of the domestic rating system will have an enormous impact on them.
	I accept that housing benefit is one way to alleviate the difficulties experienced by people in paying their rates bill. However, many people do not apply for it, either because they are not aware that they are entitled to it or because they are put off by the complex administration procedure and the stigma attached to means-testing.
	Means-testing remains a major problem. For example, it is estimated that tens of thousands of eligible pensioners do not receive pension credit. Older people find means-testing demeaning, stigmatising and intrusive, and believe that it is complex, bureaucratic and inaccessible. We will not tackle the problem of pensioner poverty in north Belfast or Northern Ireland—or anywhere in the country—until we accept that means-testing benefits is not the way to proceed. Alternatives to means-testing must be found but, in the meantime, targets must be set to ensure the full take-up of benefits and reliefs.
	I note that the reform of the council tax system in England has been put on hold, but I wonder why the Government are in such a pressing rush to go ahead with the reform of the rates system in Northern Ireland, given that it will have the effects—especially on senior citizens—that I have already outlined.
	The overriding issue for older people in my constituency and throughout Northern Ireland is the need for a decent pension that lifts them out of poverty. Average pensioner income in Northern Ireland is 10 per cent. lower than in the UK as a whole. In 2002–03, gross income for pensioner couples in Northern Ireland was £346 a month, compared with £387 for the UK as a whole. In the same year, one fifth of pensioners in Northern Ireland had incomes below the most commonly used poverty threshold. Means-testing the benefits that make up the difference is not working for pensioners in my constituency and across Northern Ireland. More needs to be done to tackle that problem.
	I conclude by drawing particular attention to the position of women in relation to pensions. Recently, a lady visited my advice centre who had worked for a considerable period of her life but who was facing the prospect of real poverty in her retirement because she had not accumulated enough pension benefits when she was in work. That problem needs to be tackled. Women remain more likely to be in part-time work, or to stay outside the work force altogether. The problem is exacerbated in Northern Ireland because female participation in the work force is lower than in the rest of the UK.
	Given that, on average, women's earnings remain substantially lower than men's, the Government risk condemning generations of women to an old age of poverty. There needs to be a change in pensions policy, so that the future for older women is secured. The Turner commission is due to report soon, and we need to tackle the problem that I have described as part of that debate.
	North Belfast has many older residents and the Minister will know the deprivation there from his visits to the area and the work that he has done. My constituency contains wards and areas that are among the most deprived in Northern Ireland and in the country as a whole. It is essential that the problems that I have set out are tackled and I look forward to his response.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) for the opportunity to discuss the issue of pensioner poverty in Belfast, North. I am also pleased to see his colleagues the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), for Upper Bann (David Simpson), for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) in their places, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound), who is an honoured member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is also in his place on the Opposition Front Bench for the debate, and the attendance at this late hour shows the real interest in pensioner poverty in Belfast, North and throughout Northern Ireland.
	I am acutely aware of the important issues that the hon. Member for Belfast, North mentioned. I hope that the Government are developing solutions to those problems while recognising that many issues are still of concern to him and his colleagues. I was pleased to note that he referred to the fact that the Government have done considerable work on providing support for pensioners in our time in office. He mentioned the winter fuel payments, which are still available and will be paid this very month. He also mentioned the free travel throughout Northern Ireland for over-65s, the free television licences, the free leisure facilities, the pension credit, the minimum income guarantee, free prescriptions for over-65s and several other important issues. I recognise that more needs to be done, and that is why the Government are keen to tackle some of the issues that he mentioned.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the north Belfast senior citizens forum. If the opportunity arises as part of my visits to north Belfast, I would be happy to meet the forum to discuss some of the issues, if that would be helpful. I know, because I have discussed it with my officials, that the forum has funding difficulties and I assure him that officials in the Department for Social Development are keen to consider how we can resolve those difficulties at an early opportunity. The forum fulfils a useful function and I pay tribute to those colleagues whom he mentioned this evening.
	It is clear that older people have specific needs in health, personal social services, economic support and community care, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned a range of important issues. It may be helpful if I explain to the House the Government's policy on tackling poverty among older people. In doing so, I shall try, in the limited time available, to refer to some of the points that he mentioned.
	I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention—I am sure that he is already aware of it—to the document entitled "Ageing in an Inclusive Society". The Government have put a lot of work into that strategy and are looking at holistic action across health, employment, transport and community safety to ensure collaboration between Departments and the voluntary and community sector on a wide-ranging action plan that will be reviewed later this month by Lord Rooker. One of the key action points in that document is the establishment of a champion for older people. We are examining how we can progress that. I have every confidence that during this financial year we will be able to come to some conclusions on the establishment of that figure.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are keen to target resources to improve the living standards of older people—in particular, the poorest pensioners. He mentioned means-testing, and I would say to him that the Department is making great efforts to reach older people to enhance the take-up of benefits. I know through my Benefits Agency role in Northern Ireland that we are trying to improve the uptake of benefits so that people get the benefits to which they are entitled, whether means-tested or otherwise. Indeed, there are three outreach services in Belfast—in Shankill, north Belfast and Newtownabbey—and the jobs and benefit offices are looking at how to improve benefit uptake.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned fuel poverty, which my Department and I are committed to tackling. Because he once had the honour—and I hope that he will have it again soon—of doing in the Assembly the job that I do now, he will know that we are taking a keen and active role in ensuring that we eradicate fuel poverty in vulnerable households by 2010. The budget for the warm homes scheme has increased over the past four years from just over £3 million in 2001 to just under £15 million in the current financial year. In Belfast, North about £1.6 million has been spent on more than 634 heating opportunities and about £472,000 on more than 1,600 insulation schemes. That will be replicated in constituencies across Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the increase in rates and water rates. In rushing through my speech in a limited time, I do not want to avoid the topic. He will be aware that the budget is currently open to consultation. I should welcome the comments of his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party and we shall have an opportunity to debate the budget in detail in the Grand Committee next week. The Government recognise that the rate increase and the water charge proposals for 2007 will have an impact, so we have announced that a new rate relief scheme will be introduced in April 2007. We are working on the scheme and, as part of the consultation process, we should welcome suggestions about how we can target the scheme effectively to ensure that we mitigate the impact of rate rises and water rate rises on vulnerable households and among pensioners.
	I forgot to mention at the beginning of the debate that I should declare a sort of interest. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Age Concern, and my wife works for that organisation.
	There are a range of concerns about the rate increase, but we are committed to ensuring that we minimise the effects on vulnerable individuals, including people on low incomes and pensioner households, especially in relation to water charges, which are due to be introduced in April 2007. We are looking to phase in the charges over a three-year period, to skew the highest charges towards more affluent areas and to develop a special hardship scheme for people facing exceptional circumstances. The Government are determined to ensure that water charges are fair and affordable for consumers and that low-income households are protected.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned investment in health and social care. That is a large topic to cover in a few minutes, but I can say that during the last five years health spending in Northern Ireland has risen from £2.2 billion a year to £3.3 billion a year and it will rise to £3.6 billion a year by 2008. The national health service accounts for more than 40 per cent. of the Northern Ireland budget and, over the next two years, we have planned above-inflation increases of 6.8 and 5.3 per cent. That will not only help to reduce in-patient and out-patient waiting lists, but enhance community care services so that people in Northern Ireland have support to enable them to remain in their own homes, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would want. A key health and social services priority for my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), is the development of integrated primary and community care services.
	The time for the debate is running out, so I conclude by assuring the hon. Member for Belfast, North that the Government are committed to developing services for older people. We believe that we are doing a reasonable job, although there are always more challenges. I am grateful for the opportunity to engage in that debate, which I hope will continue outside the House. I am grateful for the support of him and his colleagues. The debate will continue next week and I am pleased to have had this opportunity to outline the Government's case.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.